Cfce  Ultirarp 

of  tf)e 

ainfoergitp  of  J!3ort&  Carolina 


r- 

”**v 


W&i&  fiooK  toag  pregmteti 

&p 

Mrs.  T^ichrnood  Pe^rsoo 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINA 
AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


ENDOWED  BY  THE 
DIALECTIC  AND  PHILANTHROPIC 
SOCIETIES 


JK1U1 
1836 
V.  3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00009078721 


This  book  is  due  at  the  LOUIS  R.  WILSON  LIBRARY  on  the 
last  date  stamped  under  “Date  Due.”  If  not  on  hold  it  may  be 
renewed  by  bringing  it  to  the  library. 


_ 


DATE 

DEE 


RET. 


I  PB 

9* 


_ 


OCT  2  8  19S6 


2*83 


DATE 
DEE 


RET. 


wmnms 

mm 


i  *1 


V 

A 


M\Y  4 '87 


it' 


*-■ £=3  iL#  4-j  £ji 


11 


-0h 


HOV  it  ■*  1898 


DLC  19 


& - r- 


_ 


NOV  0  3 198 

81 

DEC  1  5  j 

m 

•««*»**«•  ,.r, 

ism** 

5  90  ‘ 

**"*”'"'*  a-w  l  i 

.  .  ,  Jj  j 

HOV  J  5  199S 

P 

-ni\  2  '93* 

Form  No.  513 

DEBATES 


OF  THE 

STATE  CONVENTIONS 

« 

OW  THE 

FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION. 


■M  ■  .. 

THE 

'i'. 

D  EBATES 

IN  THE  SEVERAL 

if  ,  I 


STATE  CONVENTIONS, 


OX  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE 

FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION, 


AS  RECOMMENDED  BT  THE 


GENERAL  CONVENTION  AT  PHILADELPHIA, 

IX 

17  8  7, 

TOGETHEB  WITH 

THE  JOURNAL  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION,  LUTHER 
MARTIN’S  LETTER,  YATES’  MINUTES,  CONGRESSIONAL 
OPINIONS, VIRGINIA  h  KENTUCKY  RESOLUTIONS  OF  ’98-’99, 
AND  OTHER  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


IN  FOUR  VOL  U  ME  S— VOLUME  III. 


SECOND  EDITION, 

WITH  CON  SI  I)EB  ABLE  ADDITIONS. 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE 


COLLECTED  AND  REVISED  FROM 

BY  JONATHAN  EL 


ON  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  X'EN 


\ 


/ 


7  f  5U.  7 

v.3 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-six, 

By  Jonathan  Elliot, 

In  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District 

of  Columbia. 


it 

k 


■t 


S">  ' 


Obmrf«  Unflr.  of 

North  Lxwhn* 


CONTENTS— Vol.  3. 


CONVENTION  of  Virginia  . 


Page 

.  33  to  587 


Resolutions — proposed  Ratification  .  588 
The  Question — Ayes  and  Noes,  588-89-90 

Ratification — Form . 591 

Bill  of  Rights .  592-93 

Amendments  proposed  .  .  .  594-95-96 

The  Question — Ayes  and  Noes  .  .  597 


Ml 

*  *  / 


v  ;,r 


#  .  *>' 


-  AV. 


. 


INDEX 


BY  SPEAKER’S  NAMES. 


VIRGINIA. 

JOHN  BECKLEY  appointed  Secretary 
EDMUND  PENDLETON,  President 
ORGANIZATION 


Fage. 

35 

35 

37 


Mr  CORBIN — Introductory  expression  “We  the  People,”  123,  West 
India  Trade — Debts — Requisitions,  124.  Reference  to  His- 
c  y  tory,  125.  Confederate  Government  best  for  an  extensive 


Country,  126.  Representation  ....  12S 

Power  over  the  Militia  by  the  States  ....  387 

Treatymaking  not  exceptionable  in  the  Constitution,  466.  Leg¬ 
islative  interference  secured  ....  467 

Mr  CLAY — Insurrection— opposition  to  the  Laws  .  .  .378 


Mr  DAWSON — Defects  of  the  Confederation — fears  a  Consolidated 
Government — most  exceptionable — leading  Parts,  549. — 
Treaties-^-their  operation  may  hurt  the  Southern  States — the 
Press — War — Antique  Governments  not  suited  to  the  pre¬ 
sent  day  .......  553 

Mr  GRAYSON — Judiciary  not  improved,  266.  Dutch  Loans — Spain 
friendly,  267.  Barbary  Powers,  268.  Portugal — Western 
Lands — Commutation,  268.  Regulation  of  Commence,  etc.  270 
State  influence — Imperfections  of  the  ConstitutionT271J  Opr 
poses  the  ratio  of  Representation — 1500  legislators  annually 
throughout  the  Union,  exclusive  of  160  Senators,  271.  Car¬ 
rying  and  producing  States — Ireland — Corruption  of  the 
Scotch  members  *  .  *  •  *  •  275 


viii 

/ 

Mr  GRAYSON-— continued 


Co-ordinate  authorities  a  political  absurdity,  274.  Taxes  should 
be  uniform,  275.  Requisitions— Loans,  276  Necessity  of  a 
full  Representation  in  Congress.  America  not  in  a  situation 
to  have  a  fleet,  from  it's  limited  population.  $7 8.  Parties  in 
Holland,  279.  Paper  emissions— Danger  of  mercantile  pri- 
vileges  within  the  Ten  Miles  Square,  284.  Mississippi — 

new  States,  etc.  .  .  .  .  .  Page  281 

Spanish  Claims  on  Georgia  and  Kentucky,  322.  Spanish  hego> 
tiation,  394.  Fisheries  and  Mississippi,  324.  Orleans  a  de¬ 
posit — Treaties  paramount,  336.  Maine  Lands  redifced  to 
one  dollar  an  acre,  to  prevent  emigration  to  the  West  .  331 

Importance  of  the  Mississippi  question  ....  363 


British  Parliament  receive  no  pay — most  of  the  great  officers 

have  been  taken  out  of  Congress  ....  348 

Thirst  for  public  office,  351.  Objects  that  the  Senate  propose  or 

concur  on  money  bills  .....  352 


State  Governments  at  the  mercy  of  the  generality — Militia  .  388 

Navy,  its  maintenance  at  present  dangerous — European  maritime 

powers — Cost  of  a  Navy  in  America  arid  Europe  compared,  398 
Northern  States  most  interested  in  a  fleet — Privateers  issue 
chieflv  thence  ......  39S 

Anticipated  privileges  of  the  Ten  Miles  Square  .  .  .  399 

The  Capital,  fear  of  aggrandizement  there — delivery  of  fugitives  401 
“Ten  Miles  ”  not  subject  to  the  Slates  ....  402 

Reserved  Rights — Restrictions  .... 

Presidency,  a  minority  may  elect  .  .  .  .  451  . 

Mississippi  navigation  459 — Mississippi  giving  up  the  navigation  .  462 

Judicial  Powers,  may  interfere  with  the  same  power  in  the  States 

Judges,  etc.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .512 

Effect  of  Decisions  on  a  foreign  State  ....  515 

Control  over  the  Ventie  .  .  .  .  .  .516 


Explanation  on  Treaties, 553.  Late  Convention  to  amend, not  alter. 
Resources  of  Virginia  rich  and  flourishing — Ten  Miles  Square 
may  be  near  Alexandria,  etc.  ....  £555/ 

Mr  HARRISON  Recapitulates  the  disproportion  of  the  States  on  the 

adoption  of  the  Constitution — Amendments  .  .  ^  56 7-J 

Report  on  Elections,  <  .  .  .  .  38  64 


Mr  PATRICK  HENRY  moved  the  reading  of  the^confederation,  .  40 

Public  mind  uneasy  at  the  proposed  change,  52.  The  Constitu¬ 
tion  a  consolidated  Gov’t.  Denies  the  right  of  the  convention 
to  say  “  We  the  People  ”  instead  of  “  We  the  States  ”  Object 
of  the  Convention  extended  only  to  amend  the  old  system. 


54 


IX 


Air  PATRICK  HENRY— continued 

Phraseology  <c  We  the  People  ”  objectionable,  72.  Liberty  ;  Sus¬ 
picion  a  virtue  ,  the  Confederation,  73.  Representation,  75. 
Amendments,  76.  Militia,  79.  Estimation  abroad  ;  Virginia 
Bill  of  Rights,  82.  Tax-gatherers,  84.  Power  of  the  Pre¬ 
sident  85.  Elections,  &c.  86.  Opposition  to  the  Constitution  Page  88 

Amendments  on  Governor  Randolph’s  Letter, 152.  Josiah  Phillips’ 
barbarities,  154.  Spanish  transactions,  155.  Refers  to  Eu¬ 
rope,  156.  Federal  Convention  confined  to  revision  only,  157. 
Glance  at  the  Constitution,  158.  Style  of  “  We  the  People ” 
to  oblige  those  likened  to  a  “  herd Governor  Randolph's 
expression,  160.  Implication,  .  .  .  .  16  i 

Navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  163.  American  Ambassador — 
France,  164.  Holland— Maryland,  Pennsylvania, 166.  Rati¬ 
fying  and  non-ratifying  States,  168-9.  Dictator,  170.  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia,  171.  Enthusiasm  for  Liberty,  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  172.  Checks,  175.  Representation,  176.  Sheriffs,  177. 
Government,  national— federal,  179.  State  legislatures 
shorn  of  their  consequence,  180.  Albany  Confederation — 
French  Treaty,  181 — Adopt  first,  and  then  amend,  182. 
Elections,  .  .  .  *  .  .183 

Dangers  of  the  system  real,  289.  Refers  to  Jefferson’s  opinions. 
Virginia’s  rejection  may  procure  Amendments,  300.  Polit¬ 
ical  Secrecy,  bcc.  ......  301 

No  Declaration  of  Rights  till  the  war  of  Charles  the  1,  before  that 
time  undefined.  American  Bill  of  Rights,  302.  Requisi-  . 
tions,  305.  Taxation — Elections,  306.  Compared  with  En¬ 
gland,  307.  Federal  and  State  Officers,  307.  State  Repre¬ 
sentation,  virtual,  not  actual,  308.  Judiciary,  310.  Missis¬ 
sippi  determined  to  give  it  up,  310.  Objects  of  Taxation 
create  confusion,  .  .  .  .  .  .311 

Mississippi  and  the  Fisheries,  332.  For  retaining  the  Navigation 
Congressional  pay,  \vithout  limitation.  345.  No  restraint  on  corrup¬ 
tion  .......  346 

t(  Concurrent  power  ”  relative  to  the  militia,  an  implied  power  .  362 

Eulogium  on  the  British  Government  ....  562 

A  National,  not  a  Federal  Government,  368.  Reversion  of  Po¬ 
wer  back  to  the  People — a  Republican  Government,  369. 
Depreciated  currency,  370.  Responsibility,  370.  Power  of 
raising  armies  alarming  .  .  .  .  .381 

Europe  enslaved  by  the  hands  of  its  own  people,  382.  Militia 

Officers — Riots,  382.  Excisemen  may  call  on  the  militia  .  383 

States  no  power  over  the  militia — Implication,  .  .  .  391 

Danger  of  abuse  in  the  Legislation  of  the  ‘’Ten  Miles  Square  ” 
Admonishes  that  “  when  you  give  power,  you  know  not  what 
you  give,”  404.  May  bid  defiance  to  local  authority,  &cc.  404 
Bill  of  Rights  more  necessary  in  this  government  than  in  any 

other,  411.  Common  Law  of  England — Punishments,  &c.  413 


X 


Mr  PATRICK  HENRY— continued  i 

The  Press  .  •  •.  «.  « .  •  (Page  414 


Restrictive  clauses,  424.  Want  oka- Rill  of  Rights  •  •  425 

State  restrictions  to  be  feared  !  . .  •  •  •  433 

Paper  money — British  debts  -  ...  ...  .  •  •  435 

Quorum  in  Senate  ..  .  ..  •  •  •  458 

Treaty-making  Power  Dangerous  and  Destructive  .  •  461 

Treaties— their  Omnipotence  ..  .  .  •  •  469 


Judiciary— State  judges— Appellate  jurisdiction — “  Fact  and 
Law,”— Interpretation,  492.  Precise  terms  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion — Trial*  by,  jury,  better  struck  out — Judges  should  be 
acquainted  with., all  the  Laws  of  the  States,  493.  Cognizance 
of  Controversies,.  499.  Powers  of  Congress  .  .  495 

Juries, may  be  summoned  from,  distant  parts  of  the  State  .  524 

Indians— robbed  of  their  lands  .....  525 

Ratification— Dissents  from,  states  the  omissions— Implied  Powers 
£36,000  Blacks — may  not  Congress  demand  their  services? 
Slavery  destested — Manumission — Abolition — Congress  have 
the  power — and  may  exercise  it — Prudence  forbids  Abolition 
Slave  property  in  jeopard) — Manumission  incompatible — 
a  local  matter — no  propriety  in  submitting  it  to  Congress,  535 
Insists  on  subsequent  Amendments,  536.  Its  imperfec-. 
tions,  538,  Defects  of  the  Constitution  .  .  .  562 

Right  to  adopt  Amendments  .  .  ,  .  .  585 

End  of  Government,  Liberty,  kc.  .  .  .  .  587 

Mr  INNES — Objections  fully  answered — -Amendments — Sectional 
Jealousy,  570.  Union — Foreign  Dangers,  571.  N.  England¬ 
ers,  572,  No  good  from  another  Convention,  573,.  Previous 
Amendments  equal  to  Rejection  .  .  .  .574 

Mr  ZACHARIAH  JOHNSON  approves  the  principle  of  Represen¬ 
tation — Militia — Responsibility — Amendments  .  .  583 

Mr  H.LEE  thought  the  Convention  ought  to  adjourn  on  22d.  as  the 

Legislature  meet  on  the  23d,  June  .  .  .  .38 

Persons  bound  to  labour  could  not  take  refuge  in  the  “Ten  Miles,” 

being  contrary  to  the  Constitution ,  .  _  .  •  403 

Mr  LEE,  of  Westmoreland. — 

Phraseology  of  the  Preamble,  “We  the  People,”  70.  Represen¬ 
tation  .......  71 

Worth  of  the  Militia, 185.  Tender  Laws,  186.  Shay ‘sRebellion,  187 
Taxation,  188.  Mississippi  transactions,  189.  Pennsylvania 
efficient  during  the  war,  190.  Freeholds — Descents,  191. 

State  Gov‘ts— Congress,  the  Servants  of  the  People,  192. 
Ratification  ......  193 

Confidence  alone  can  procure  Election — Slavery  .  .  265 

Congress  never  intended  to  give  up  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi — positive  directions  in  the  Treaty  with  Gardoqui  not  to 
assent  to  it  .  .  .  •  .  •  »  318 

Government,  general — National  Powers — Militia — Abuse  of  Po¬ 
wer  ........  378 


11 


Mr  MADISON!  (a  Member  of  the  Federal  Convention) —Taxation- 
Representation — Consolidation — Watchfulness  of  the  States 
salutary  ......  Page  64 

Replies  to  Mr  Henry — Rhode  Island,  110,  Exclusive  Legisla¬ 
tion,  111.  Army,  112.  Religion  free,  113.  Amendments 
— Taxation — Senators — Representatives  .  .  .11 7 

Taxes,  14.3*  Amphyctionic  League  resembled  our  Confedera¬ 
tion,  144.  Achsen — Germanic — Swiss — Holland — without 

energy  Anarchy  ensues,  145.  Weakness — Merit  of  the  War 
not  attributable  to  the  Confederation,  148.  Notoriously  feeble  150 

Necessity  of  a  change — Taxation’ — Is  it  necessary?  244.  How  far 
practicable?  249.  How  far  it  may  be  safe,  as  well  with  the 
public  Liberty  at  large,  as  to  the  State  Legislatures,  .  251 

With  respect  to  Economy,  253.  Powers  of  the  General  Gov’t,  in 
contradistinction  to  that  of  the  States,  254.  Requisitions  not 
economical  .......  25 5 

Concurrent  collection  of  Taxes,  293.  Uniformity  of  Taxes,  295. 
a  Navy — a  security  against  Insults — Prospects  of  Population 
in  25  Years — Holland  not  a  Republic,  296.  Mississippi,  its 
Navigation  should  be  preserved— New  Government  secures 
our  Rights,  298.  Carrying  and  Non-importing  States  .  299 

Requisitions — Taxes,  312.  Wishes  Henry’s  words  suppressed 
relative  to  Jefferson’s  opinion — that  he  knowshe  is  captivated 
with  the  equality  of  suffrage  in  the  Senate,  which  Henry  calls 
the  rotten  part  of  the  Constitution — Religion — not  a  shadow 
of  Right  to  meddle  with  it,  313.  Contradictory  Arguments. 
Mississippi  Navigation  can  only  be  had  by  an  efficient  Gov’t  314 

'Disclosure  of  the  Mississippi  matters,  326.  Confirms^he  Project 
to  surrender  the  Navigation  for  25  Years — N.  Jersey  instruc- 
ted  her  Delegates  to  oppose  it,  327.  Each  State  an  equal 
weight  in  Treaties,  328.  A  weak  system  produced  the  pro¬ 
ject  to  give  up  the  Mississippi,  which  will  never  be  again  re¬ 
vived  in  Congress  .  .  .  .  .  .329 

Election  of  Senators  and  Representatives  .  •  .  345 

Congressional  Compensation,  how  determined,  and  why  left  open 

to  be  fixed  by  Law  ....  346  to  349 

Reasons  why  Members  of  Congress  should  accept  Appointments  349 

Money  Bills — Senate— Convention  decides  on  confining  their  pri- 

gin  to  the  House  .  .  .  .  ,  353 

Militia  to  be  employed  rather  than  a  standing  Army  ,  .  354 

Power  to  arm  the  Militia,  &c.  is  concurrent  between  the  General 

Government  and  the  States  ,  ,  .  357 

Posse  insufficient,  then  the  Militia  to  be  called  .  .  .  359 

Meaning  of  “  Purse  and  Sword,”  567.  Anxiety  for  a  well  regu¬ 
lated  Republican  Government,  &?c.  .  .  •  368 

Situation  of  the  Country,  371.  Responsibility — Political  Ex¬ 
periment  must  be  made  .....  372 


Mr  MADISON  (a  member  of  the  Federal  Convention)— contin  ued 
Elections — Objections  explained— "the  President  may  adjourn  the 

Senate,  if  thdy  attempt  to  prevent  an  adjournment  of  the  yj  ? 
House  ......  Page-^64 


General  Government  should  command  the  national  Forces 
Militia  abuses— may  quell  Smugglers  .... 
British  Militia  quell  Riots — Virginia  Militia  .  . 

Replies  to  Henry  on  the  Militia  Power  .... 
Ten  Miles  Square — Without  exclusive  Legislation  there,  Con¬ 
gress  could  not  be  secure  from  Insults 
Legislature  not  safe,  when  subject  to  the  paramount  Authority  of 
a  part  of  the  Community  ..... 
Slaves — Condition  of  the  South  to  enter  the  Union — temporary 
/  permission  to  carry  on  the  Slave  Trade,  417.  Congress  can- 

/  not  tax  Slaves  amounting  to  manumission — Slave  property 

secured — reclamation  of  Slaves — General  Government  has 
no  Power  to  interpose  in  Slave  Property 
Southern  States  satisfied  with  the  Slave  Compromise  . 
Publication  of  Receipts  and  Expenditures 
Validity  of  Claims — nor  Paper  Money  not  affected 
Judiciary,  Strictures  on^ — Cognizance,  See. 

Value  of  the  Continental  Debt— Claims  neither  increased  nor  di¬ 
minished  ....... 

Importing  and  Exporting  States  ..... 

Propriety  in  choosing  the  President  from  the  People  at  large — 
Provision  in  case  of  his  Death  .  .  .  . 

Presidential  Election,  Difficulty  of,  in  the  Federal  Convention  in 
pointing  out  the  Mode — Objections 
Pardoft'ing  Power  .  '•  •  •  .  . 

Treaties — paramount  Law — eannot'dismemberthe  Union  by  them 
Treaties — to  regulate  Commerce — external — Responsibility  com¬ 
pared  with  that  of  the  British  Government 
Judiciary — Objections  to,  refuted  .... 

Executive,  peculiar  Difficulty  in  prescribing  its  Duties,  &c. 
Treaties — Judiciary  to  expound  them  .... 

Supreme  Court— general  View — Jurisdiction,  485.  *  Cognizance 
— Disputes  between  a  Foreign  State  and  one  of  our  States— 
Organization — Appellate  Jurisdiction*  &c.  s 

Judiciary — Compensation — Trial  by  Jury,  489.  Vexatious  Ap¬ 
peals  may  be  remedied  by  Congress — Confidence  better  than 
Money  .*••••♦ 

Flattering  prospects  of  free  America — Gratification  not  to  be 
looked  for  in  all  the  States — awful  importance  on  Deci¬ 
sion,  557.  Difficulties  on  preparing  the  Constitution— Rati¬ 
fication  of  Eight  States,  a  Failure,  558.  Nesv  York  opposi¬ 
tion — more  than  those  Rights  enumerated  by  Wythe,  559. 
Amendments,  560.  Emancipation  of  Slaves — Constitution 
does  not  contemplate  to  strip  their  owners  of  their  Property- 
Claims  of  Mar)  land  for  Western  Lands  .  .  i 

Amendments,  previous  and  subsequent 


383 

384 

385 
393 

400 

405 


.  418 

.  422 

.  423 

434  to  435 
.  477 


441 

443 

447 

553 

456 

458 

471 

483 

484 

485 


486 


490 


561 

567 


Xltl 


JOHN  MARSHALL — Democracy,  well  regulated,  idolized — Reply 
to  Mr  Henry — Taxation,  225.  Reference  Gov.  Randolph’s 
Remarks,  226;  Government  should  have  that  power  in  peace 
necessary  in  war,  227.  Confederation — objects  of  Taxa¬ 

tion,  230.  People’s  affections  the  best  support  of  Govern¬ 
ment,  230.  Advocates  Adoption — equal  taxes  .  Page  234 

Militia — State  Governments  do  not  derive  their  powers  from  the 
General  Govei  nment — but  from  the  people,  388.  Powers  not 
given  not  retained  by  implication — Powers  exclusive  in  theTen 
Miles  Square.  States  same  power  over  the  militia,  as  under 
the  Confederation — the  System  excellent  .  .  •  389 

Judicial  System — its  Benefits,  201.  Erroneous  principle  on 
which  objections  are  founded,  502*  Examination  of  them — 
Cognizance — State  Courts — protection  from  infringements 
on  the  Constitution,  503.,, Appeals— Disputes  between  states  8c 
citizens,  504,  Contracts, 506.  Trial  by  jury,  506 — 509.  Chal¬ 
lenging  jurors — Lord  Fairfax’s  title,  508.  Bill  of  Rights 
merely  recommendatory,  etc.  .  .  *  •  509 

Mr  MASON — Full  investigation  necessary,  and  not  to  he  bound  by 

general  Rules,  37.  To.be  discussed  clause  by  clause  .  38 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON— Taxation — Representation, 59,  For  Amend¬ 
ments  .......  63 

Composition  of  Parliament,  compared  with  Congress,  256. 

Taxes,  257-  R.  Morris's  Tax  proposition,  258.  Constitu¬ 
tion  paramount,  259.  Aristocracy-r^Representation,  260.  Re¬ 
ference  to  Europe.  Maryland  and  the  Potomac — Back 
Lands,  263.  Joins  the  warmest  friends  of  the  Constitution  264 

Militia — For  State  Legislatures  to  limit  their  Services,  See.  .  354 

Militia  Punishments  —  Impeachment' — Bribery — Treaty-making  374 

Election  Districts  .  .  .  .  .  .375 

Keeping  the  Journal — Publication,  &c.  Long  Sessions-:-Danger 

of  the  Senate  stopping  the  other  House  from  adjourning  .  377 

State  Governments  should  have  the  control  of  the  Militia  .  386 

Militia  Classes— rmav  grant  exclusion  to  the  Rich  .  .  395 

Legislation  in  the  Ten  Miles — no  need  of  implication — rjnay  bean 

Asylum  for  Felons  and  other  Offenders  .  .  .  399 

“General  Welfare”  Powers  not  expressly  granted  are  retained-^  ( 

Congress  may  abuse  it  .  .  .  .  408 

Prohibitions  of  Slave  Importations,  (Art.  7.  Sect.  9.) — Slave  Po¬ 
pulation  weakens  the  States--Slave  property  not  secured  .  417- 

Taxes — Power  of  Congress  over  them — Runaways  not  protected 


in  other  States  ......  422 

Paper  Speculations — Depreciation,  8cc.  ....  434 

Ex  post  facto  Laws  .  .  ,  .  440 

Revenue — Tobacco  inspection  .  .  ,  442 


President’s  Election  without  Rotation,  444.  Returns  to  the  Peo¬ 
ple  from  w  hence  he  was  taken — Senate,  its  Defect  that  Sen¬ 
ators  are  not  ineligible  .  .  .  .  • 


445 


XIV 


Mr  GEORGE  MASON— continued 

Presidency,  vnode  of  Election  objectionable  .  .  Page  552 

Army — Pardoning  Power,  &c.  ....  455 

Treaty-making  Power  not  sufficiently  guarded  .  .  .  464 

Judiciary — State  Courts,  5cc.  .....  474 
Jurisdiction — Operation  of  judicial  power — Federal  Courts,  &c.  479 

Constitution — Arguments  offered  do  not  apply  .  .  .  52$ 


JAMES  MONROE,  Fate  of  ancient  nations,  210.  Review  of  ancient 
Leagues,  Germany,  Swiss,  Netherlands,  213.  Western 
Posts,  214.  Confederation — Comparative  power  in  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Constitution,  215.  Division  of  power,  219.  Presidential 
Responsibility,  220.  Its  connection  with  the  Senate — Gov¬ 
ernment  in  the  hands  of  States,  and  therefore  danger¬ 
ous  .......  322 

Deplorable  State  of  the  Country  at  the  time  of  the  Mississippi 
negotiation,  317.  Interest  of  the  Western  States  to  op¬ 
pose  the  Constitution  .....  '22 

Project  of  the  Spanish  Treaty,  325.  President  ought  to  be  res¬ 
ponsible  to  theStates — his  election — may  continue  for  life, 448 
Vice-President  unnecessary  office  ....  449 

Conditional  Ratification  not  dangerous  to  the  Union,  5G8.  Fed¬ 
eral  Convention  met  under  a  loose  commission  .  .  569 

Mr  GEORGE  .NICHOLAS— 

Out-Door  interest  opposing  the  Constitution,  235.  Reference  to 
Mr  Henry’s  Remarks — Western  Posts — Treaty — Mississip¬ 
pi,  236.  Western  Lands  and  Emigration.  Kentucky  an  in¬ 
dependant  Staite,  238.  Scotch  union  produced  Peace,  24(>: 

Taxes,  241.  Federal  Constitution  contains  a  British  Bill  of 


Rights  k  .  .  .  .  .  243 

— -  “General  Welfare”  limited — no  new  grant  of  Power — Extent,  &c.  409 

Bill  of  R  ights — its  omission  no  Defect  ....  416 

Obligation  of  Contracts — Claims  under  the  Confederation  .  437 

Continental  Money — Contracts — Public  Debts  .  .  .  439 

Tobacco — Taxes  _  .  .  .  .  .  .  443 

Treaties,  Parallel  between  American  and  British  .  .  463 

British,  more  Independent  than  Federal,  5kc.  .  .  .  526 

Mr  WILSON  NICHOLAS — Qualifications  of  Electors — their  Num¬ 
ber — continuance  in  Office.  Powers,  Responsibility,  .  41  to  51 

Confederation  defective — Collectors — Taxes,  119.  Defence  of 

the  Constitution  ......  121 


Rights  of  the  Mississippi  better  secured  under  the  Constitution, 
that!  the  Confederation,  335.  Formation  of  Treaties,  337. 

N.  Jersey  Instructions  to  vote  against  ceding  the  Mississippi. 

Dread  of  Recall  might  impair  Senators  usefulness — Ken¬ 
tucky  Interests  rely  on  the  new  Constitution  •  .  339 

Inadequacy  of  the  Militia  System,  363.  Defence  of  the  caprice  of 

the  State  Governments — Martial  Law,  &c.  .  .  564 

Militia,  may  quell  Slave  Insurrections,  396.  FourthArt.  introduced 

wholly  for  ihe  benefit  of  the  States  .  .  .  397 

Seat  of  Government  still  subject  to  State  Regulations  .  .  402 

Restriction  on  Slave  Importation  and  Compromise  with  the  South 
— Local  Slave  Tax 


421 


XV 


Hfr  PENDLETON  objects  to  the  reading  of  the  papers  of  the  Con¬ 
federation  .  .  .  .  .  .  Page  40 

Situation  before  the  Convention — no  cause  of  alarm — “We  the 
the  People,”  66.  Imbecility  of  the  Confederation,  67.  Ne¬ 
cessity  of  the  Constitution,  68.  Taxes,  69.  Relative  political 
weight  of  Virginia  and  Delaware  .  .  .  .  70 

Nature  of  a  free  government,  283.  The  “  well  born  ”  284.  Re-, 
gular  Government  essential  to  liberty*  284.  Education  from 
the  “  public  purle  ”  not  strictly  just— Suffrage  in  Europe,  285 
People  the  fountain  of  power,  286.  Difference  between  State 
and  Federal  Constitution,  287.  Replies  to  Mr  Monroe,  288 
Kentucky,  Mississippi,  289.  Amendments,  290.  Cites  Jef- 
terson’s  authority  for  previous  Amendments  .  .  292 

Ten  Miles  Square — Power  of  Congress  in  legislation  and  local 

-  police,  406.  Militia  405 

Judiciary — Supreme  and  inferior  Courts — independence  of  Judges 

as  to  tenure  and  salary  subjects — classification,  .  •  473 

Appeals — Criminal  cases — Jury  trials,  497*  Jurisdiction,  etc.  .  49? 

Gov.  RANDOLPH  (a  member  of  the  Federal  Convention)  discloses 
his  motives  why  he  refused  to  sign  the  Constitution,  56.  For 
previous  and  not  subsequent  Amendments — Inefficacy  of  the 
Confederation  discovered  when  danger  w'as  over,  57.  Sate  in 
the  Convention  at  Annapolis — its  doings,  57,  Rhode  Island 
— Replies  to  the  inquiries  relative  to  “  We  the  People  ”  .  59 

Picture  of  the  Country,  91.  Case  of  Josiah  Phillips.  91.  Adopt¬ 
ing  States,  92.  Union  necessary  to  Virginia — British  debts,  97 
Mississippi — Bordering  States — Paper  Money — Public  Cre¬ 
dit,  100 — want  of  a  Navy,  100 — local  Confederacy — Object 
of  a  Confederacy,  103.  State  of  the  country,  &c.  .  .  104 

Powers  necessary  to  be  given  to  the  General  Government  .  132 

Requisitions,  loans,  taxes.  See.  .....  136 

Energetic  Government  necessary,  194.  Historical  Reference 
corrected  195.  Bill  of  Rights  in  England,  196.  Six  or 
seven  States  here  have  none,  195.  Negroes  numerous,  197. 

Ports,  Potomac  and  Maryland,  198.  Josiah  Phillips  .  198 

Previous  or  subsequent  Amendments — Presidential  Responsibil¬ 
ity,  198.  Vermont,  admission  into  the  Union,  200.  Scotland 
benefitted  by  Union — Spanish  apprehensions  about  Mexico 
and  Peru,  201.  Separate  Confederacy  fatal,  202.  Tribute 
to  Jefferson,  203.  Concurrehce  of  the  Senate,  fke.  205.  Re¬ 
ligion  207,  Judiciary,  taxes,  militia — “sweeping  clause,”  209 
French  Ambassador  in  1781,  declared  America  had  no  right  to 

the  Mississippi, but  the  United  States  will  never  relinquish  it,  340 
Militia  to  be  governed  by  Congress  only  when  in  the  service  of  the 

United  States  ......  373 

Impeachment — Responsibility— standing  Army  .  .  .373 

Sweeping  clause — Incidental  Powers — difference  between  the 
State  and  Federal  Constitution — negative  Restrictions,  427. 

Bill  of  Rights,  429,  Excessive  bail,  fines,  kc.  430.  Jury 
trial.  Press,  Religion,  431,  Common  Law 


432 


svi 


Gov.  RANDOLPH  (a  Member  of  the  Federal  Convention) — contin’d 

President,  his  re-election  proper,  445.  Restrained  from  receiv  ing 
foreign  Emolument,  445.  Treaties — State  Rights,  or  pro¬ 
perty  not  affected  by  them,  461.  Federal  Judiciary,  its 
merits,  517.  Fairfax’s  case  of  quit-rents,  521.  Secession 
may  create  anarchy,  &o.  540.  Replies  to  the  idea  of  Aboli- 
tion  of  Slavery,  &c.  541.  Takesa  general  glance  at  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  and  the  proposed  amendments,  J>45.  Motives  for 
refusing  to  subscribe  to  the  Constitution,  again  repeated,  Page  587 

Mr  STEPHEN — For  a  judicious  mixture  of  the  three  different  kinds 

of  Goyernment — Apostrophe  to  the  Genius  of  America,  &c.  579 


-  Mr  TYLER— Opposed  to  the  Slave  Traffic  and  exclusive  Legislation 
in  the  ‘‘Ten  Miles”  .  .  . 

Principles  on  which  he  disapproves  .  . 

Defects  dangerous  to  Liberty  ..... 

Mr  WYTHE — Previous  Amendments — for  subsequent,  531.  Pro¬ 
posed  Ratification  ...... 


419 

574 

578 

532 


RESOLUTIONS  submitU'J  after  the  Committee  had  gone  through 


the  Constitution,  ayes,  80,  Noes  88.  .  .  .  587 

Yeas  and  Nays  on  the  main  Question,  Ayes  89,  Nays  79  .  589 

Ratification — form  agreed  to  .  .  .  .591 

Reported  Amendments  for  the  consideration  of  Congress  •  592 

AMENDMENTS  proposed  to  the  Constitution  .  .  594  to  596 

The  QUESTION,  Ayes  65,  Noes  85.  .  .  .  596,  597 

AMENDMENTS  ordered  to  be  engrossed  ....  597 

RATIFICATION — a  fair  engrossed  Copy  of  the  FederaJ  Constitution 

with  Amendments  to  be  madg  and  printed  .  .589 

ADJOURNMENT,  sine  die  .  .  .  .  .598 


VIRGINIA. 


THE  DEBATES 


in  the  CONVENTION  of  the 

COMMONWEALTH  OF  VIRGINIA,, 

on  THE  ADOPTION  of  the 
FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION. 


In  convention ,  Richmond ,  Monday,  June  2d,  1788. 

This  being-  the  clay  recommended  by  the  legislature  for  the  meet*, 
ing  of  the  convention,  to  take  into  consideration  the  proposed  plan: 
of  federal  government,  a  majority  of  the  gentlemen  delegated  thereto, 
assembled  at  the  public  buildings,  in  Richmond — whereupon  they 
proceeded  to  the  choice  of  a  secretary,  when  John  Beckley  was 
appointed,  to  that  office. 

The  honorable  EDMUND  PENDLETON  was  nominated,  and, 
unanimously  elected  president:  who  being  seated  in  the  chair, 
thanked  the  convention  for  the  honor  conferred  on  him,  and  strong-.. 
Vy  recommended'  to  the  members  to  use  the  utmost  moderation  and 
temper  in  their  deliberations  on  the  great  and  important  subject 
now  before  them. 

On  the  recommendation  of  Mr  Paul  Carrington,  the  Rev.  Abner 
Waugh  was  unanimously  elected  Chaplain,  to  attend  every  morn*, 
mg,  to  read' prayers,  immediately  arter  the  bell  shall  be  rang  for 
callino-  theconvention. 

O 

The  convention  then  appointed  William  Drinkard,.  sen.  and  Wm. 
Drinkard,  jun.  door-keepers. 

On  motion — 

Ordered ,  That  a  committee  or  privileges  and  elections  be  appointed, 
and  a  committee  was  appointed  of — 

Mr  Benjamin  Harrison,  Mr  George  Mason,  Gov.  Randolph,  Mr 
George  Nicholas,  Mr  John  Marshal,  Mr  Paul  Carrington,  Mr  Tyler 
Mr  Alexander  White,  Mr  Blair,  Mr  Bland,  Mr  Grayson,  Mr  Fisher, 
Mr  Matthews,  Mr  John  Jones,  Mr  Wythe,  Mr  William  Cabell,  Mr 
James  Taylor,  [of  Caroline,]  Mr  Gabriel  Jones,  Mr.  Corbin  Mr  Innps 
Mr  Monroe.  Mr  Henry  Lee,  Mr  Bullitt. 


36 


DEBATES. 


Ordered,  That  the  committee  of  privileges  and  elections  do  examine 
and  report  the  returns  for  electing  delegates  to  serve  in  this  conven* 
tion  ;  and,  that  in  cases  where  no  returns  are  made,  it  be  an  instruc¬ 
tion  to  the  said  committee,  to  receive  such  evidence  as  the  sitting 
member  snail  produce  of  his  election,  and  report  the  same  to  the 
convention. 

On  motion — 

Ordered ,  That  Mr  Edmund  Pendleton,  jun.  be  appointed  clerk  to 
the  committee  of  privileges  and  elections. 

Mr  P.  CARRINGTON  presented  a  petition  of  Thomas  Stith,  of 
the  county  of  Brunswick,  complaining  of  the  undue  election  and 
return  of  Binnas  Jones,  one  of  the  delegates  return  to  serve  in  this 
convention,  for  the  said  county  of  Brunswick  ;  which  was  ordered 
to  be  referred  to  the  committee  of  privileges  and  elections. 

On  motion  of  Mr  CORBIN— 

Ordered ,  That  Mr  Augustine  Davis  be  appointed  printer  to  the 
convention,  and  that  he  cause  to  be  printed,  forthwith,  two  hundred 
copies  of  the  plan  of  federal  government — also  two  hundred  copies 
of  the  resolutions  of  the  general  assembly,  of  the  25th  of  October 
last,  to  be  distributed  among  the  members  of  this  convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr  GEORGE  MASON— 

Ordered ,  That  the  convention  be  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morn¬ 
ing,  eleven  o’clock,  then  meet  at  the  New  Academy,  on  Shock® 
Hill,  in  this  city. 

Tuesday.  June  3d,  1788. 

The  convention  met  at  the  New'  Academy,  on  Shock®  Hill,  pur¬ 
suant  to  adjournment. 

Mr  LEE  presented  a  petition  of  Richard  Morris,  of  the  county  of 
Louisa,  complaining  of  an  undue  election  and  return  of  William 
Wrh  ite,  as  one  of  the  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention,  for  the 
said  county  of  Louisa  ;  which  was  ordered  to  be  referred  to  the 
committee  of  privileges  and  elections. 

On  motion  of  Mr  HARRISON — 

Ordered ,  Mr  William  Pierce,  be  appointed  serjeant  at  arms  to  the 
convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr  JOHN  JONES— 

Ordered ,  That  Daniel  Hicks,  be  appointed  door-keeper  to  the 
convention. 

Mr  HARRISON  moved,  that  all  the  papers  relative  to  the  con¬ 
stitution  should  be  read. 

Mr  TYLER  observed,  that  before  any  papers  were  read,  certain 
rules  and  regulations  should  be  established  to  o-overn  the  conven- 
tion  in  their  deliberations  ;  which  being  necessary  on  all  occasions, 
a:e  more  particularly  so,  on  this  great  and  important  one. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH  said,  that  he  was  fully  convinced  of  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  establishing  rules — but  as  this  was  on  a  subject  which 


VIRGINIA. 


37 


might  involve  the  convention  in  a  debate  which  would  take  up  con¬ 
siderable  time,  he  recommended  that  the  rules  of  the  house  of  dele¬ 
gates,  as  far  they  were  applicable,  should  be  observed. 

Mr  TYLER  replied,  that  he  had  considered  what  the  honorable 
gentleman  had  said,  and  the  objection  to  the  mode  recommended  by 
him. 

Upon  which,  the  convention  came  to  the  following  resolution — 

Resolved ,  That  the  rules  and  orders  for  conducting  business  in 
the  house  of  delegates,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  applicable  to  the 
convention,  be  observed  therein. 

On  motion — 

The  resolution  of  congress  of  the  28th  of  September  last,  together 
with  the  report  of  the  federal  convention  lately  held  in  Philadelphia; 
the  resolut  ions  of  the  general  assembly,  of  the  25th  of  October  last," 
and  the  act  of  the  general  assembly,  entitled,  “An  act  concerning 
the  convention  to  be  held  in  June  next,”  were  read — 

Whereupon,  Mr  MASON  addressed  the  President  as  follows  : 
Mr  President,  I  hope,  and  trust,  sir,  that  this  convention,  appointed 
by  the  people,  on  this  great  and  important  occasion,  for  securing,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  the  latest  generation,  the  happiness  and  liberty 
of  the  people,  will  freely  and  fully  investigate  this  important  sub¬ 
ject.  For  this  purpose,  I  humbly  conceive,  the  fullest  and  clearest 
investigation  indispensably  necessary,  and  that  we  ought  not  to  be 
bound  by  any  general  rules  whatsoever.  The  curse  denounced  by 
the  divine  vengeance  will  be  small,  compared  to  what  will  justly 
fall  upon  us,  if  from  any  sinister  views  we  obstruct  the  fullest  inqui¬ 
ry.  This  subject,  therefore,  ought  to  obtain  the  freest  discussion, 
clause  by  clause,  before  any  general  previous  question  be  put,  nor 
ought  it  to  be  precluded  by  any  other  question. 

Mr  TYLER  moved,  that  the  convention  should  resolve  itself  into 
a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  to-morrow,  to  take  into  con¬ 
sideration  the  proposed  plan  of  government,  in  order  to  have  a  fair¬ 
er  opportunity  of  examining  its  merits. 

Mr  MASON,  after  recapitulating  his  former  reasons  for  having 
urged  a  full  discussion,  clause  by  clause,  concluded,  by  agreeing 
with  Mr  Tyler,  that  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention  was  the 
most  proper  mode  of  proceeding — 

Mr  MADISON  concurred  with  the  honorable  gentleman,  in  going 
into  a  full  and  free  investigation  of  the  subject  before  them,  and  said 
he  had  no  objection  to  the  plan  proposed. 

Mr  MASON  then  moved  the  following  resolution,  which  was  a- 
greed  to  by  the  convention,  unanimously  : 

Resolved ,  That  no  question,  general  or  particular,  shall  be  pro¬ 
pounded  in  this  convention,  upon  the  proposed  constitution  ot  gov¬ 
ernment  for  the  United  States,  or  upon  any  clause  or  article  thereot, 


'33  DEBATES. 

'■until  the  said  constitution  shall  have  been  discussed,  clause  by  clause, 
through  all  its  parts. 

Mr  TYLER  said,  he  should  renew  his  motion  for  the  convention 
to  resolve  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  the  next 
day,  to  take  under  consideration  the  proposed  plan  of  government. 

Mr  LEE  strongly  urged  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  imme¬ 
diately  entering  into  the  discussion. 

Mr  MASON. — Mr  President,  no  man  in  this  convention  is  more 
averse  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  convention  than  I  am  ;  but  I  am 
equally  against  hurrying  'them  precipitately  into  any  measure.  I 
humbly  conceive,  sir,  that  the  members  onght  to  have  time  to  con¬ 
sider  the  subject.  Precious  as  time  is,  We  ought  not  to  run  into  the 
discussion  before  we  have  the  proper  means. 

Mr  HARRISON  urged  as  a  reason  for  beferring  the  discussicn 
till  tc-morrow,  that  many  of  the  members  had  not  yet  arrived,  and 

that  it  would  be  improper  -to  enter  into  tlie  business  until  they  should 
arrive. 

Mr  LEE  answered  the  two  objections  against  entering  immed¬ 
iately  into  the  business — he  begged  gentlemen  to  consider  that  they 
were  limited  in  point  of  time;  that  if  they  did  not  complete  their 
business  on  the  22d  day  of  the  month,  they  should  be  compelled  to 
adjourn,  as  the  legislature  Was  to  meet  the  23d. — He  also  begged 
gentlemen  to  consider  the  consequences  of  such  an  adjournment  : 
that  the  constitution  he  believed,  was  very  fully  understood  by  every 
gentleman  present,  having  been  the  subject  of  public  and  private  coiu 
sideiation  of  most  persons  on  the  continent,  and  of  the  peculiar  med¬ 
itation  of  those  who  were  deputed  to  the  convention. 

The  convention  then  came  to  the  following  resolution— 

Resolved ,  That  this  convention  will,  to-morrow,  resolve  itself  into 
a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  to  take  into  consideration  the 
proposed  constitution  of  government  for  the  United  States. 

And  then  the  convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  eleven  o’clock 
Wednesday ,  the  4th  of  June  1788. 

Mr  HARRISON  reported  from  the  committee  of  privileges  and 
elections,  that  the  committee  had  according  to  order,  examined  the 
returns  for  electing  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention,  and  had 
come  to  a  resolution  thereupon,  which  he  read  in  his  place,  and  after¬ 
wards  delivered  in  at  the  clerk’s  table,  where  the  same  was  again 
twice  read,  and  agreed  to  by  the  house,  as  followeth — 

Resolved ,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  tlus  committee ,  That  the  returns 
for  electing  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention  for  the  counties  of 
Albermarle,  Amelia,  Amherst,  Bedford,  Botetourt,  Brunswick,  Buck¬ 
ingham;  Caroline,  Charlotte,  Charles-City,  Chesterfield,  Culpeper, 
Cumberland,  Dinwbddie,  Elizabeth-City,  Fauquier,  Fairfax,  Fay¬ 
ette,  Fluvanna,  Frederick,  Gloucester,  Goochland,  Greenbrier, 


VIRGINIA. 


39 


Greenesville,  Halifax,  Hampshire,  Hardy,  Harrison,  Hanover,  Hen¬ 
rico,  Henry,  James-City,  Jefferson,  Isle-of-Wight,  King  George, 
King  and  Queen,  King  William,  Lancaster,  Lincoln,  Loudon,  Loui¬ 
sa,  Lunenberg,  Madison,  Mecklenburgh,  Mercer,  Middlesex, 
Monongalia,  Montgomery,  Nansemond*  New-Kent,  Nelson,  Norfolk, 
Northampton,  Northumberland,  Ohio,  Orange,  Pittsylvania,  Prin- 
cess-anne,  Prince-George,  Prince-William,  Prince-Edward,  Powha¬ 
tan,  Randolph,  Richmond,  Rockbridge,  Rockingham,  Russell,  Shen¬ 
andoah,  Southampton,  Syottsylvania,  Stafford,  Surry,  Sussex,  War¬ 
wick,  Washington,  York,  and  of  a  delegate  for  the  borough  of  Nor¬ 
folk,  and  City  of  Williamsburg,  are  satisfactory. 

Mr  HARRISON  reported  from  the  committee  of  privileges  and 
elections — 

That  the  committee  had  enquired  into  the  elections  of  delegates 
for  the  counties  of  Accomack  and  Franklin,  and  had  agreed  to  are- 
port,  and  come  to  several  resolutions  thereupon,  which  he  read  in  his 
place,  and  afterwaids  delivered  in  at  the  clerk’s  table,  where  the 
same  were  again  twice  read,  and  agreed  to  by  the  house,  as  follow- 
eth : 

It  appears  to  your  'committee,  that  no  "returns  have  been  made  of 
of  the  election  of  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention,  for  the  coun¬ 
ties  of  Accomack  and  Franklin:  that  as  to  the  election  of  delegates 
for  the  said  county  of  Accomack,  it  appears  from  the  information  of 
Nathaniel  Darby  and  Littleton  Eyre,  esquires,  that  they  were  at 
the  election  of  delegates  for  the  said  county  of  Accomack,  in  March 
last,  and  that  George  Parker,  and  Edmund  Custis,  esquires,  (the  sit¬ 
ting  members)  were  proclaimed  by  the  sheriff,  at  the  close  of  the 
poll,  as  duly  elected  delegates  to  represent  the  said  county  in  this 
convention. 

That  as  to  the  election  of  delegates  for  the  said  county  of  Franklin 
it  appears  to  your  committee,  from  the  information  of  Robert  Will¬ 
iams,  esquire,  that  he  “Was  at  the  election  of  delegates  for  the  said 
county  of  Franklin,  in  March  fast,  and  that  John  Early  and  Thomas 
Arthurs,  esquires,  (the  sitting  members)  were  proclaimed  by  the 
Sheriff  at  the  close  of  the  poll,  as  duly  elected  delegates  to  represent 
the  said  county  of  Accomack  iR  this  convention. 

Resolved ,  that  it  is  the  opin’on  of  this  committee,  That  John  Early 
and  Thomas  Arthurs,  esquires,  were  elected  delegates  to  represent 
the  said  county  of  Franklin  in  this  convention. 

Resolved ,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  That  Edmund 
Custis,  and  George  Parker,  esquires,  were  elected  delegates  to 
represent  the  said  county  of  Accomack  in  this  convention. 

Ordered ,  That  Mr  Madison  and  Mr  Lawson  be  added  to  the  com¬ 
mittee  of  privileges  and  elections. 

Mr  ARCHIBALD  STUART,  presented  a  petition  of  Samuel 
Anderson,  of  the  county  of  Cumberland,  setting  forth — 

That  Thomas  H.  Drew,  esquire,  one  of  the  delegates  returned  lor 
the  said  county  to  serve  in  this  convention,  was  not,  at  the  time  ot 
his  election,  a  freeholder  in  this  commonwealth;  and  praying  that 
the- election  of  the  said  Thomas  H.  Drew,  may  be  set  aside,  and 
another  election  directed  to  supply  his  place:  which  was  read,  and 
ordered  to  be  referred  to  the  committee  of  .privileges  and  elections. 


40 


DEBATES- 


The  convention,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  resolved  itself 
into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  to  take  into  consideration 
the  proposed  plan  of  government,  Mr  Wythe  in  the  chair. 

Mr  HENRY  moved— 

That  the  act  of  assembly  appointing  deputies  to  meet  at  Annapolis 
to  consult  with  those  from  some  other  states,  on  the  situation  of  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States — the  act  of  assembly  appointing 
deputies  to  meet  at  Philadelphia,  to  revise  the  articles  of  confedera¬ 
tion — and  other  public  papers  relative  thereto — should  be  read. 

Mr  PENDLETON,  then  spoke  to  the  following  efiect:  Mr 
Chairman,  we  are  not  to  consider  whether  the  federal  convention 
exceeded  their  powers.  It  strikes  my  mind,  that  this  ought  not  to 
influence  our  deliberations.  This  constitution  was  transmitted  to 
congress  by  that  convention :  by  the  congress  transmitted  to  our 
legislature  :  by  them  recommended  to  the  people  :  the  people  have 
sent  us  hither  to  determine  whether  this  government  be  a  proper 
one  or  not.  I  did  not  expect  these  papers  would  have  been  brought 
forth.  Although  those  gentlemen  were  only  directed  to  consider  the 
defects  of  the  old  system,  and  not  devise  a  new  one,  if  they  found  it 
so  thoroughly  defective  as  not  to  admit  a  revising,  and  submitted  a 
a  new  system  to  our  consideration,  which  the  people  have  deputed 
us  to  investigate,  I  cannot  find  any  degree  of  propriety  in  reading 
those  papers. 

Mr  HENRY  then  withdrew  his  motion — 

The  clerk  proceeded  to  read  the  preamble,  and  the  two  first  sections 
of  the  first  article. 

PREAMBLE. 

We,  the  People  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more 
perfect  union,  establish  justice,  ensure  domestic  tranquility,  provide 
for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure 
the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  constitution  for  the  United  States. 

House  of  Representatives. 

Art.  1. — Sect.  1 — All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be 
vested  in  a  congress  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a 
senate  and  house  of  representatives. 

Sect.  2. — The  house  of  representatives  shall  be  composed  of 
members  chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the  several 

states,  and  the  electors  in  each  state  shall  have  the  qualifications  for 
electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature. 

No  person  shall  be  a  representative  who  shall  not  have  attained 
to  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven  years  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabi¬ 
tant  of  that  state  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  states  which  may  be  included  within  this  union,  according- 
to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  adding 
to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to  ser- 


Nichslas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


41 


vice  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three- 
fifths  of  all  other  persons.  The  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made 
within  three  years  after  the  first  meeting  of  the  congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  within  every  subsequent  term  of  ten  years,  in 
such  manner  as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  number  of  repre¬ 
sentatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand,  but  each 
state  shall  have  at  least  one  representative  ,  and  until  such  enume¬ 
ration  shall  be  made,  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  entitled 
to  choose  three,  Massachusetts  eight,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five,  New  York  six,  New  Jersey  four, 
Pennsylvania  eight,  Delaware  one,  Maryland  six,  Virginia  ten, 
North  Carolina  five,  South  Carolina  five,  and  Georgia  three..  When 
vacancies  happen  in  the  representation  from  any  state,  the  executive 
authority  thereof  shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  fill  such  vacancies. 

The  house  of  representatives  shall  choose  their  speaker  and 
other  officers :  and  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment. 

Mr.  NICHOLAS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  time  being  now  come  when 
this  state  is  to  decide  on  this  important  question,  of  rejecting  or  re¬ 
ceiving  this  plan  of  government,  it  gave  me  great  pleasure  yesterday, 
when  the  convention  determined  to  proceed  with  the  fullest  delibe¬ 
ration  on  the  subject ;  as  every  gentleman  will,  in  the  course  of  the 
discussion,  have  an  opportunity  to  urge  every  objection  that  may 
arise  in  his  mind  against  this  system,  I  beg  gentlemen  to  offer  all 
their  objections  here,  and  that  none  may  be  insisted  on  elsewhere  ; 
and  I  hope  nothing  urged  without  these  walls,  will  influence  the 
the  mind  of  any  one.  If  this  part  of  the  plan  now  under  conside¬ 
ration  be  materially  defective,  I  will  readily  agree  it  ought  to  be 
wholly  rejected,  because  representation  is  the  corner  stone  on  which 
the  whole  depends  ;  but  if  on  investigation  it  should  be  found  to  be 
otherwise,  the  highest  gratitude  should  be  shewn  to  those  gentlemen 
who  framed  it — although  some  small  defects  may  appear  in  it,  yet 
its  merits  I  hope  will  amply  cover  those  detects. 

I  shall  take  it  into  consideration,  first,  as  it  affects  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  of  the  electors  :  2dly,  as  its  affects  the  qualifications  of  the 
elected  ;  3dly,  as  to  their  number ;  4thly,  the  time  of  their  contin¬ 
uance  in  office  ,  5thly,  their  powers  ;  and  Gthty,  whether  this  pow¬ 
er  be  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  discharge  their  duty,  without  di¬ 
minishing  the  security  of  the  people — or  in  other  words,  their  re¬ 
sponsibility. 

I  will  consider  it  first,  then,  as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  elec¬ 
tors — the  best  writers  on  government  agree,  that  a  republic  those 
laws  which  fix  the  right  of  suffrage  are  fundamental  ;  if  therefore, 
by  the  proposed  plan  it  is  left  uncertain  in  whom  the  right  of  suf¬ 
frage  is  to  rest  or  if  it  has  placed  that  right  in  improper  hands,  I 
shall  admit  that  it  is  a  radical  defect;  but  in  this  plan  there  is  afixed 
rule  for  determining  the  qualifications  of  electors  ;  and  that  rule  the 
most  judicious  that  could  possibly  have  been  devised;  because 'A 


*42  DEBATES  [Nicholas. 

• 

rrefers  to  a  criterion  which  cannot  be  changed.  A  qualification 
gives  a  right  to  elect  representatives  for  the  state  legislatures,  gives 
also  by  this  constitution  a  right  to  choose  representatives  for  thfe 
general  government.  As  the  qualifications  of  electors  are  different 
in  the  different  States,  no  particular  qualifications  uniform  through 
the  states  would  have  been  politic,  as  it  would  have  caused  a  great 
inequality  in  the  electors,  resulting  from  the  situation  and  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  respective  states.  Uniformity  of  qualifications  would 
grearly  affect  the  yeomanry  in  the  states,  as  it  would  either  exclude 
from  this  inherent  right  some  W'ho  are  entitled  to  it  by  the  laws  of 
some  states  at  present  :  or  be  extended  so  universally  as  to  defeat 
the  admirable  end  of  the  institution  of  representation. 

Secondly — As  it  respects  the  qualifications  of  the  elected.  It  has 
ever  been  considered  a  great  security  to  liberty,  that  very  few  should 
be  excluded  from  the  right  of  being  chosen  to  the  legislature.  This 
constitution  has  amply  attended  to  this  idea.  We  find  no  qualifica¬ 
tions  required  except  those  of  age  and  residence,  which  create  a 
certainty  of  their  judgement  being  matured,  and  of  being  attached 
to  their  state. — It  has  been  objected,  that  they  ought  to  be  posses¬ 
sed  of  landed  estates ;  but,  sir,  when  we  reflect  that  most  of  the 
electors  are  landed  men,  vve  must  Suppose  they  will  fix  on  those 
who  are  in  a  similar  situation  with  themselves.  We  find  there  is  a 
decided  majority  attached  to  the  landed  interest,  consequently  the 
landed  interest  must  prevail  in  the  choice.  Shoudl  the  state  be  di¬ 
vided  into  districts,  in  no  one  can  the  mercantile  interest  by  any 
means  have  an  equal  weight  in  the  elections — therefore  the  former 
will  be  more  fully  represented  in  thq  congress;  and  men  of  eminent 
Abilities  are  not  excluded  for  the  want  of  landed  property.  There 
is  another  objection  which  has  been  echoed  from  one  end  of  the 
continent  to  the  other;  that  congress  may  alter  the  time,  place  and 
manner  of  holding  elections;  that  they  may  direct  the  place  of  elec¬ 
tions  to  be  where  it  will  be  impossible  for  those  who  haVe  a  right  to 
vote,  to  attend  :  for  instance,  that  they  may  order  the  freeholders  of 
Albemarle  to  Vote  in  the  county  of  Princess  Ann,  or  vice  versa;  or 
regulate  elections  otherwise  in  such  a  manner  as  totally  to  defeat 
their  purpose,  and  lay  them  entirely  under  the  influence  of  congress-. 

I  flatter  myself  that  from  an  attentive  consideration  of  this  power, 
it  will  clearly  appear,  that  it  was  essentially  necessary  to  give  it  to 
congress,  as  without  it,  there  could  have  been  no  security  for  the 
general  government  against  the  state  legislatures.  What,  Mr. 
Chairman,  is  the  danger  apprehended  in  this  case?  If  I  understand 
it  right,  it  must  be,  that  congress  might  cause  the  elections  to  be 
held  in  the  most  inconvenient  places,  and  at  so  inconvenient  a  time* 
'and  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  give  them  the  most  undue  influence  ovei 


Nicholas.]  VIRGINIA.  4§ 

v  •  .  ... 

the  choice,  nay,  even  to  prevent  the  elections  from  being  held  at  all, 
in  order  to  perpetuate  themselves.  But  what  would  be  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  this  measure!  It  would  be  this,  sir,  that  congress  would 
cease  to  exist ;  it  would  destroy  the  congress  itself ;  it  would  abso¬ 
lutely  be  an -act  of  suicide  ;  and  therefore,  it  can  never  be  expected. 
This  alteration,  so  much  apprehended  must  be  made  by  law  ;  that 
is,  with  the  concurrence  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature.  •Will 
the  house  of  representatives,  the  members  of  which  are  chosen  only 
for  two  years,  and  who  depend  on  the  people  for  their  I’e-election, 
agree  to  such  an  alteration!  It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  it. 

But  let  us  admit  for  a  moment,  that  they  will :  what  wrnuld  be 
the  consequence  of  passing  such  a  law!  It  would  be,  sir,  that  after 
the  expiration  of  the  two  years,  at  the  next  election  they  would 
either  choose  such  men  as  would  alter  the  law,  or  they  wrnuld  re¬ 
sist  the  government.  An  enlightened  people  will  never  suffer  what 
was  established  for  their  security,  to  be  perverted  to  an  act  of  tyr¬ 
anny.  It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  resistance  would  then  become 
vain:  congressarevestedwit.il  the  power  of  raising  an  army  ;  to 
which  I  say,  that  if  ever  congress  shall  have  an  army  sufficient  for 
their  purpose,  and  disposed  to  execute  their  unlawful  commands,  be’ 
fore  they  would  act  under  this  disguise,  they  would  pull  off  the 
mask,  and  declare  themselves  absolute.  I  ask,  Mr  Chairman,  is  it 
a  novelty  in  our  government?  Has  wot  our  sthte  legislature  the 
power  of  fixing  the  time,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections? 
The  possible  abuse  here  complained  of,  never  can  happen  as  long  as 
the  people  cf  the  United  States  are  virtuous.  As  long  as  they  con¬ 
tinue  to  have  sentiments  of  freedom,  and  independence,  should  the 
congress  be  w’icked  enough  to  harbor  so  absurd  an  idea,  as  this  ob- 
jection  supposes,  the  people  will  defeat  their  attempt,  by  choosing 
other  representatives,  who  will  alter  the  law.  If  the  state  legisla¬ 
ture,  by  accident,  design,  or  any  other  cause,  would  not  appoint  a 
place  for  holding  elections  then  there  might  be  no  election  till  the 
time  was  passed  for  which  they  were  to  have  been  chosen  ;  and  as 
this  would  eventually  put  an  end  to  the  union,  it  ought  to  be  guard¬ 
ed  against,  and  it  could  only  be  guarded  against  by  giving  this  dis¬ 
cretionary  power  to  the  congress,  of  altering  the  time,  place,  and 
manner  cf  holding  the  elections.  It  is  absurd  to  think  that  congress 
will  exert  this  power,  or  change  the  time,  place,  and  manner  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  stales,  if  the  states  will  regulate  them  properly,  or  so 
as  not  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  the  Union.  It  is  urged,  that  the 
state  legislatures  ought  to  be  fully  and  exclusively  possessed  of 
this  power.  .Were  this  the  case,  it  might  certainly  defeat  the  go¬ 
vernment.  As  the  powers  vested  by  this  plan  in  congress,  are  taken 
from  the  state  legislatures,  they  would  be  prompted  to  throw  every 


debates. 


4  4 


[Nicholas. 


obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  general  government.  It  was  then  neces-- 
sary  that  congress  should  have  this  power. 

Another  strong  argument  for  the  necessity  of  this  power  is,  that 
if  it  was  left  solely  to  the  states,  there  might  have  been  as  many 
times  of  choosing  as  there  are  states.  States  having  solely  the 
power  of  altering  or  establishing  the  time  of  election,  it  might  hap¬ 
pen  that  there  should  be  no  congress  ;  not  only  by  omitting  to  fix  a 
time,  bnt  also  by  the  elections  in  the  states  being  at  thirteen  diffe¬ 
rent  times,  such  intervals  might  elapse  between  the  first  and  last 
election,  as  to  prevent  there  being  a  sufficient  number  to  form  a 
house  ;  and  this  might  happen  at  a  time  when  the  most  urgent  bus¬ 
iness  rendered  their  session  necessary  ;  and  by  this  power,  this 
great  part  of  the  representation  will  be  always  kept  full,  which  will 
be  a  security  for  a  due  attention  to  the  interest  of  the  community  ; 
and  also  the  power  of  congress  to  make  the  times  of  elections  uni¬ 
form  in  all  the  states,  will  destroy  the  continuance  of  any  cabal,  as 
the  whole  body  of  representatives  will  go  out  of  office  at  once. 

I  come  now,  sir,  to  consider  that  part  of  the  constitution  which 
fixes  the  number  of  representatives.  It  is  first  necessary  for  us  to 
establish  what  the  number  of  representatives  is  to  be.  At  present 
it  only  consists  of  sixty-five ;  but  let  us  consider  that  it  is  only  to 
continue  at  that  number  till  the  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made  ; 
which  is  to  be  within  three  years  after  the  first  meeting  of  congress 
and  that  the  number  of  representatives  will  be  ascertained,  and  the 
proportion  of  taxes  fixed  within  every  subsequent  term  of  ten  years. 
Till  this  enumeration  be  made,  congress  will  have  no  power  to  lay 
direct  taxes:  as  there  is  no  provision  for  this  purpose,  congress 
cannot  impose  it ;  as  direct  taxation  and  representation  are  to  be 
regulated  by  the  enumeration  there  directed  ;  therefore  they  have  no 
power  of  laying  direct  taxes  till  the  enumeration  be  actually  made. 
I  conceive  no  apportionment  can  be  made  before  this  enumeration, 
there  being  no  certain  data  to  go  on.  When  the  enumeration  shall 
be  made,  what  will  be  the  consequence?  I  conceive  there  will  be 
always  one  for  every  thirty  thousand.  Many  reasons  concur  to 
lead  me  to  this  conclusion .  By  the  constitution,  the  allotment  now 
made,  will  only  continue  till  the  enumeration  be  made  ;  and  as  a 
new  enumeration  will  take  place  every  ten  years,  I  take  it  for  grant¬ 
ed  that  the  number  of  representatives  will  be  increased  according 
to  the  progressive  increase  of  population,  at  every  respective  enu¬ 
meration  ;  and  one  for  every  thirty  thousand  will  amount  to  one 
hundred  representatives,  if  we  compute  the  number  of  inhabitants 
to  be  only  three  millions  in  the  United  States,  which  is  a  very  mod¬ 
erate  calculation.  The  first  intention  was  only  to  have  one  for 
every  forty-thousand,  which  was  afterwards  estimated  to  be  too 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


45 


few,  and  according  to  this  proportion,  the  present  temporary  num¬ 
ber  is  fixed;  but  as  it  now  stands,  we  readily  see  that  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  representatives  is  sufficiently  numerous  to  answer  every  pur- 
pese  of  federal  legislation,  and  even  soon  to  gratify  those  who  wish 
for  the  greatest  number.  I  take  it,  that  the  number  of  representa¬ 
tives  will  be  proportioned  to  the  highest  number  we  are  entitled  to; 
and  that  it  never  will  be  less  than  one  for  every  thirty  thousand* 
I  formed  this  conclusion  from  the  situation  of  those  who  will  be  our 
representatives.  They  are  all  chosen  for  two  years  ;  at  the  end  of 
which  term  they  are  to  depend  on  the  people  for  their  re-election. 
This  dependence  will  lead  them  to  a  due  and  faithful  discharge  of 
their  duty  to  their  constituents :  the  augmentation  of  their  number 
will  conciliate  the  affections  of  the  people  at  large  ;  for  the  more 
the  representatives  increase  in  number,  the  greater  the  influence  of 
the  people  in  the  government,  and  the  greater  the  chance  of  re-elec¬ 
tion  to  the  representatives* 

But,  it  has  been  said,  that  the  senate  will  not  agree  to  any  aug¬ 
mentation  of  the  number  of  representatives.  The  constitution  will 
entitle  the  house  of  representatives  to  demand  it.  Would  the  Se¬ 
nate  venture  to  stand  out  against  them!  I  think  they  would  not, 
sir.  Were  they  ready  to  recede  from  the  evident  sense  of  the  con¬ 
stitution,  and  grasp  at  power  not  thereby  given  them,  they  would 
be  compelled  to  desist.  But,  that  1  may  not  be  charged  with  ur¬ 
ging  suppositions,  let  us  see  what  ground  this  stands  upon,  and 
whether  there  be  any  real  danger  to  be  apprehended.  The  first  ob¬ 
jection  that  I  shall  consider  is,  that  by  paucity  of  numbers,  they 
will  be  more  liable  to  depart  from  their  duty,  and  more  subject  to 
influence.  I  apprehend  that  the  fewer  the  number  of  representa¬ 
tives,  the  freer  the  choice,  and  the  greater  the  number  of  electors, 
the  less  liable  to  the  unworthy  acts  of  the  candidates  will  they  be  ; 
and  thus  their  suffrage  being  free,  will  probably  fall  on  men  of  the 
most  merit.  The  practice  of  that  country,  which  is  situated  more 
like  America  than  any  other  country  in  the  world,  will  justify  this 
supposition.  The  British  house  of  commons  consists,  I  believe, 
of  five  hundred  and  fifty-eight  members,  yet  the  greater  number  of 
these  are  supposed  to  be  under  the  undue  influence  of  the  crown- 
A  single  fact  from  the  British  history  illustrates  these  observations, 
viz  :  that  thore  is  scarcely  an  instance,  for  a  century  past,  of  the 
crown’s  exercising  its  undoubted  prerogative,  of  rejecting  a  bill  sent 
up  to  it,  by  the  two  houses  of  parliament :  it  is  no  answer  to  say, 
that  the  king’s  iufluence  is  sufficient  to  prevent  any  obnoxious  bills 
passing  the  two  houses  :  there  are  many  instances  in  that  period* 
not  only  of  bills  passing  the  two  houses,  but  even  receiving  the 
royal  assent,  contrary  to  the  private  wish  an  inclination  of  the 


DEBATES.. 


4t5 


[Ts’jCHOL'AS^,. 


It  is  objected,  however,  as  a  defect  in  the  constitution,  that  it; 
does  not  prohibit  the  house  of  representatives  from  giving1  their 
powers,  particularly  that  respecting  the  support,  &c.  of  armies,  out; 
of  their  hands  for  a  longer  term  than  two  years.  Here,  I  think,  the* 
enemies  to  the  plan  reason  unfairly;  they  first1  supposed  that  con¬ 
gress,  from  a  love  of  power  natural  to  all,  will;  in  general,  abuse' 
that  with  which  they  are  invested  ,  and  when  they  would  make  us  ap— 
prehend  that  the  house  of  representatives,  notwithstanding  their  love 
or  power  (and  it  must  be  supposed  as  great  in  a  branch  of  congress 
as  in  tile  whole)  will  give  out  of  their  hands  the  only  check',  which* 
can  ensure  to  them  the  continuance  of  the  participation  of  the  pow¬ 
ers  lodged  in  congress  in  general.  In  England  there  is  no  restraint, 
of  this  kind  on  the  parliament  ;  and  yet  there  is  no  instance  of  a 
money  bill  being  passed  for  a  longer  term  than  one  year:  the  pro¬ 
posed' plan,,  therefore;  when  it1  declares  that  no  appropriation  for  the 
support  of  an  army,  shall  be  made  fdr  albnger  term  than  two  years, 
introduces  a  check  unknown  to  the  English  constitution  ;  and  one* 
which  will1  be  found  very  powerful1  when  we  reflect,  that  if  the- 
house  of  representatives  could  be  prevailed  on  to  make  an  appropri¬ 
ation  for  an  army  for  two  years,  at  the  end  of  that  time,  tliere  will 
be  a  new  choice  of  representatives.  Thus  I  insist,  that  security 
does  not  depend  on  the  number  of  representatives1:  the  experience 
of  that  country  also  shows,  that  many  of  their  counties  and  cities 
contain  a  great  number  of  souls,  than  will  be  entitled  to  a  repre¬ 
sentation  in  America,  and’ yet  the  representatives  chosen  in  those 
places  have  been  the  most  strenuous  advocates  of  liberty,  and  have 
exerted  themselves  in  the  defence  of  it,  even  in  opposition. to  those* 
chosen  by  much  smaller  numbers.  Many  of  the  senatorial  districts: 
in  Virginia,  also  contain  a  greater  number  of  souls-,  and  yet  I  sup¬ 
pose  no  gentleman  within  these  walls  will  pay  the  senators  chosen  < 
by  them  so  poor  a  compliment  as  to  attribute  less  wisdom  and  virtue  * 
to  them,  than  to  the  delegates  chosen  from  single  counties  :  and  as 
there  is  greater  probability  that  the  electors  in  a  large  district  will! 
be  more  independent,  so  I'  think  the  representatives  chosen  in  such 
districts  will  be  more  so  too  ;  for  those  who  have  sold  themselves- 
to  their  representative  will  have  no  right  to  complain,  if  they,  in- 
their  turn,  barter  away  their  rights  and' liberties ;  but  those  who  . 
h-ave  not  themselves  been  bought,  will  never  consent  to  be  sold., 
Another  objection  made  to  the  small  number  of  representatives,  is, 
that  admitting  they  were  sufficient  to  secure  their  integrity,  yet, they 
cannot  be  acquainted' with-  the  local  situation  and  circumstances-  of 
their  constituents.  When  we  attend'to  the  object  of  their  judisdic- 
tion  we  find  this  objection  insupportable.  Congress  will  superin¬ 
tend  the  great  national  interests  of  the  union,  Jmcal  concerns  aro 


VIRGINIA. 


47: 


Nicholas.] 

left  to  the  state  legislatures.  When  the  members  compare  and  com¬ 
municate  to  one  another  their  knowledge  of  their  respective  districts 
and  states  their  collective  intelligence  will  sufficiently  enable  them 
to  perform  the  objects  of  their  cognizance.  They  cannot  extend 
their  influence  or  agency  to  any  objects  but  those  of  a  general  na- 
tuie  ;  the  representati  ves  will,  therefore,  be  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  the  interests  of  their  states,  although  chosen  by  large  districts. 
As  long  as  the  people  remain  virtuous  and  uncorrupted,  so  long,  we 
may  fairly  conclude,  will  their  representatives,  even  at  their  present 
number  guard  their  interests,  and  discharge  their  duty-  with  fidelity 
and  •zeal :  when  they  become  otherwise,  no  government  can  possibly 
secure  their  freedom. 

I  now  consider  the  time  of  their  continuance  in  office.— -A  shorts 
continuance  in  office,  and  a  return  of  the  officers  to  the  mass  of  the 
people,  there  to  depend  solely  on  their  former  good  conduct  for  their 
re-election,  is  of  the  highest  security  to  public  liberty.  Let  the' 
power  of  the  person  elected  be  what  it  may,  they  are  only  the  trus-  - 
tees  and  not  the  masters  of  the  people — yet  the  time  ought  not  to 
be  so  short  that  they  could  not  discharge  their  duty  with  ability. 
Considering  this,  a  term  of  two  years  is  short  enough  in  this  case. 
Many  will  have  a  considerble  distance  to  travel  from, the  places  of 
their  abode,  to  the  seat  of  the  general  government.  They  must 
take  time  to  consider  the  situation  of  the  union,  make  themselves 
acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  our  finances,  and  the  relative 
situation  of,  and  our  connections  with,  foreign  nations,  and  a  variety 
of  other  objections,  of  importance.  Would  it  not  be  the  height  of 
impolicy,  that  they  should  go  out  of  their  office,  just  as  they  began 
to  know  something  of  the  nature  of  their  duty!  Were  this  the  case, 
the  interest  of  their  constituents  could  never  be  sufficiently  attended 
to.  Our  representatives  for  the  state  legislature  are  chosen  for  one 
year,  and  it  has  never  been  thought  too  long  a  term.  If  one  year 
be  not  too  long  to  elect  a  state  representative,  give  me  leave  to  say,, 
that  two  years  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  too  long  for  the  election 
of  the  members  of  the  general  legislature.  The  objects  of  the  for-^ 
mer  are  narrow,  and  limited  to  state  and  local  affairs — the  objects  ol 
the  latter  are  co-extensive  with  the  continent.  In  England,  at  the  time 
they  were  most  jealous  of  the  prerogative  of  the  king,  triennial  elec¬ 
tions  was  their  most  ardent  wish— they  would  have  thought  them¬ 
selves  perfectly  happy  in  this  acquisitionrr-tior  did  they  think  of  a 
shorter  term  of  elections. — Let  gentlemen  recollect  that  it  is  to  sep^ 
tennial  elections,  we  owe  our  liberties,  The  elections  were  for 
seven  years  in  most  of  the  states  before  the  late  revolution. 

I  now  consider  their  weight  and  power,  and  whether  they  will 
|>p  sufficient  to  give  them,  as  the  representatives  of  the  people,  their 


DEBATES. 


4S 


[Nicholas. 


due  weight  in  the  government.  By  the  constitution,  they  are  one 
entire  branch  of  the  legislature,  without  whose  consent  no  law 
can  be  passed  ;  all  money  bills  are  to  originate  in  their  house ; — * 
they  are  to  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment ; — their  consent  is 
necessary  to  all  acts  or  resolutions  for  the  appropriation  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  money  ; — to  all  acts  for  laying  and  collecting  duties,  imposts, 
and  excises ; — for  borrowing  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  ;  — for  creating  all  officers,  and  fixing  their  salaries ; — for 
coining  money  ; — for  raising  and  supporting  armies  ; — for  raising 
and  maintaining  a  navy; — and,  for  establishing  rules  for  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  land  and  naval  forces  :  these  are  the  powers  which 
will  be  fixed  in  the  house  of  representatives. 

Hence  it  appears  our  representatives  have  more  comparative  po- 
wrer  in  the  scale  of  government,  than  the  commons  of  England,  and 
yet,  in  that  country,  the  commons,  possessing  less  powers,  opposed 
with  success  much  greater  powers  than  our  representatives  have  to 
encounter.  In  that  country,  the  king  is  one  entire  branch  of  the 
legislature,  and  an  hereditary  monarch;  can  prorogue  or  dissolve, 
call  or  dismiss,  the  two  houses  at  his  pleasure  ;  besides  his  judicial 
influence,  he  is  head  of  the  church,  fountain  of  honor,  generalissimo 
of  the  forces,  by  sea  or  land,  may  raise  what  fleets  and  armies  he 
pleases,  is  rendered  personally  sacred,  by  the  constitutional  maxim, 
that  he  can  do  no  wrong ;  and  besides  several  other  great  powers 
has  a  grand  revenue  settled  on  him,  sufficient  to  answer  the  ordinary 
ends  of  government;  it  being  established  as  a  custom,  at  the  acces¬ 
sion  of  every  new  king,  to  settle  such  a  revenue  on  him  for  life  ; 
and  can  increase  the  house  of  lords  at  any  time,  and  thereby  extend 
his  legislative  influence:  notwithstanding  the  enormity  of  these 
powers,  it  has  been  found  that  the  house  of  commons,  with  powers 
greatly  inferior  to  those  of  our  representatives,  is  a  match  for  both 
the  king  and  the  nobles.  This  superiority  resulted  from  their  hav¬ 
ing  the  power  of  witholding  or  granting  supplies.  What  will  put 
this  in  a  still  clearer  point  of  view,  is,  that  the  house  of  commons 
were  not  originally  possessed  of  these  powers.  The  history  of  the 
English  parliament  will  shew,  that  the  great  degree  of  power  which 
they  now  possess  was  acquired  from  beginnings  so  small,  that  no¬ 
thing  but  the  innate  weight  of  the  power  of  the  people,  when  lodged 
with  their  representatives,  could  have  effected  it.  In  the  reign  of 
Edward  the  first,  in  the  year  1295,  the  house  of  commons  were  first 
called  by  legal  authority;  they  were  then  confined  to  giving  their 
assent  barely  to  supplies  to  the  crown.  In  the  reign  of  Edward  the 
second,  they  first  annexed  petitions  to  the  bills,  by  which  they 
granted  subsidies.  Under  Edward,  the  third,  they  declared  they 
would  not  in  future  acknowledge  any  law,  to  which  they  had  not 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


43' 


consented  :  in  the  same  reign,  they  impeached  and  brought  to  pun¬ 
ishment,  some  of  the  ministers  of  the  crown.  Under  Henry,  the 
fourth,  they  refused  supplies  until  an  answer  had  been  given  to 
their  petitions  ;  and  have  increased  their  powers  in  succeeding 
reigns,  to  such  a  degree,  that  they  entirely  control  the  operation  of 

government,  even  in  those  cases,  where  the  king’s  prerogative  gave 
him,  nominally,  the  sole  direction. 

Let  us  here  consider  the  causes  to  which  this  uncommon  weight 
and  influence  may  be  assigned.  The  government  being  divided 
into  branches,  executive,  and  legislative,  in  all  contests  between 
them,  the  people  have  divided  into  the  favorers  of  one  or  the  other; 
from  their  dread  of  the  executive,  and  affection  to  their  representa¬ 
tives,  they  have  always  sided  with  the  legislature  ;  this  has  rend^ 
ered  the  legislature  successful.  The  house  of  commons  have  sue- 
ceeded  also  by  witholding  supplies  ;  they  can  by  this  power,  put  a 
stop  to  the  operations  of  government,,  which  they  have  been  able 
to  direct  as  they  pleased.  This  power  has  enabled  them  to  triumph 
over  all  obstacles;  it  is  so  important  that  it  will  in  the  end  swallow 
up  all  others.  Any  branch  of  government  that  depends  on  the  will 
of  another  for  supplies  of  money,  must  be  in.  a  state  subordinate  de¬ 
pendence,  let.  it  have  what  other  powers  it  may.  Our  representa¬ 
tives,  in  this  case,  will  be  perfectly  independent,  being  vested  with 
this  power  fully.  Another  source  of  superiority  is  the  power  of  im¬ 
peachment..  In  England,  very  few  ministers  have  dared  to  bring  on 
themselves  an  accusation  by  the  representatives  of  the  people,  by 
pursuing  means  contrary  to  their  rights  and  liberties.  Few  minis¬ 
ters  will  ever  run  the  risk  of  being  impeached,  when  they  know 
the  king  cannot  protect  them  by  a  pardon.  This  power  must  have 
much  greater  force  in  America,  where  the  president  himself,  is  per¬ 
sonally  amenable  for  his  ma  1-administration  ;  the  power  of  impeach¬ 
ment,  must  be  a  sufficient  check  on  the  president’s  power  of  par¬ 
doning  before  conviction.  I  think  we  may  fairly  conclude,  that  if 
the  house  of  commons  in  England  have  been  able  to  oppose  with 
success,  a  powerful  hereditary  nobility,  and  an  hereditary  monarch, 
with  all  the  appendages  of  royalty,  and  immense  powers  and  reve¬ 
nues,  our  federal  house  of  representatives  will  be  able  to  oppose  with 
success,  all  attempts  by  a  president,  only  chosen  for  four  years  by 
the  people,  with  a  small  revenue,  and  limited  powers,  sufficient  only 
for  his  own  support ;  and  a  senate  chosen  only  for  six  years,  one 
third  of  whom  vacate  their  seats  every  two  years,  accountable  to 

the  state  legislatures,  and  having  no  separate  interest  from  them,  or 
the  people. 

I  now  come  to  consider  their  responsibility  to  the  people  at  large. 
The  probability  of  their  consulting  most  scrupulously  the  interests* 

VOL,  3,  4 


50 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas. 

of  their  constituents  must  be  self  evident;  this  probability  will  re¬ 
sult  from  their  biennial  elections,  whether  they  wish  to  be  re-elected 
or  not.  If  they  wish  to  be  re-elected,  they  will  know  that  on  their 
good  conduct  alone,  their  re-election  will  depend.  If  they  wish  not 
to  be  le-elected,  they  will  not  enter  into  a  fixed  combination  against 
the  people,  because  they  return  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  where 
they  will  participate  in  the  disadvantages  of  bad  laws;  by  the  publica¬ 
tion  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  the  votes  of  the  individual  members  will 
be  known ;  they  will  act,  therefore,  as  if  under  the  eyes  of  their 
constituents  :  the  state  legislatures,  also,  will  be  a  powerful  check 
on  them.  ^Every  new  power  given  to  congress,  is  taken  from  the 
state  legislatures,  they  will  be,  therefore,  very  watchful  over  them  ; 
for  should  they  exercise  any  power  not  vested  in  them,  it  will  he 
an  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  different  state  legislatures,  who 
would  sound  the  alarm  to  the  people.  Upon  such  an  appeal  from 
the  states  to  the  people,  nothing  but  the  propriety  of  their  conduct 
would  ensure  the  congress  any  chance  of  success.  Should  a  strug¬ 
gle  actually  ensue,  it  would  terminate  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
general  government,  as  congress  would  be  the  object  of  the  fears, 
and  the  state  legislature  the  object  of  the  affections  of  the  people: 
One  hundred  and  sixty  members  chosen  in  this  state  legislature, 
must  on  any  dispute  between  congress  and  the  state  legislature,  have 
more  influence  than  ten  members  ofcongress.  One  representative  to 
congress  will  be  chosen  by  eight  or  ten  counties  ;  his  influence 
and  chance  of  re-election  will  be  very  small  when  opposed 
by  twenty  men  of  the  best  interests  in  the  district;  when  we  add 
to  this  the  influence  of  the  w'hole  body  of  the  state  officers,  I  think  I 
may  venture  to  affirm,  that  every  measure  of  congress  will  be  suc¬ 
cessfully  opposed  by  the  states.  The  experience  of  this  state  legis¬ 
lature,  hath  fully  satisfied  me  that  this  reasoning  is  just.  The 
members  of  our  senate  have  never  ventured  to  oppose  any  measure 
of  the  house  of  delegates  ;  and  if  they  had,  their  chance  of  being  re¬ 
elected,  when  opposed  by  the  delegates  of  the  different  counties, 
would  be  small.  But  what  demonstrates  that  there  is  sufficient 
responsibility  in  the  representatives  to  the  people,  and  what  must 
satisfy  the  committee,  is  this,  that  it  will  be  their  own  interest  to 
attend  to  that  of  the  people  at  large.  They  can  pass  no  law,  but 
what  will  equally  affect  their  own  persons,  their  families  and  prop¬ 
erty.  This  will  be  an  additional  influence  to  prevail  with  them  to 
attend  to  their  duty — and  more  effectually  watch  and  check  the 
executive.  Their  consequence  as  members  will  be  another  induce¬ 
ment.  If  they  will  individually  signalize  themselves  in  support  of 
their  constituents,  and  in  curbing  the  usurpations  of  the  executive, 
it  will  best  recommend  them  to  the  people,  secure  their  re-election, 


VIRGINIA. 


Nicholas.] 


51 


and  enhance  their  consequence.  They  therefore  will  become  watch* 
ful  guardians  of  the  interests  of  the  people. 

The  constitution  has  wisely  interposed  another  check,  to  wit; 
That  no  person  holding  an  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United 
States,  shall  be  a  member  of  either  house  during  his  continuance  in 
office.  No  powers  ought  to  be  vested  in  the  hand  of  any  one  who 
are  not  representatives  of  the  people,  and  amenable  to  them.  A 
review  of  the  history  of  those  countries  with  which  I  am  acquainted* 
will  shew,  that,  for  want  of  representation  and  responsibility, 
power  has  been  exercised  with  an  intention  to  advance  the  interest 
of  a  few,  and  not  to  remove  the  grievances  of  the  many.  At  the 
time  the  Romans  expelled  their  kings,  the  executive  authority  was 
given  to  consuls,  and  the  people  did  not  gain  by  the  change;  for 
the  plebeian  interest  declined,  while  that  of  the  patricians  rapidly 
advanced,  till  the  oppressions  of  the  latter  caused  the  former  to  re¬ 
tire  to  the  sacred  mount;  and  even  this  struggle  terminated  only  in 
the  creation  of  the  tribunes  of  the  people.  Another  struggle,  produ¬ 
ced  only  the  advantage  of  their  admission  to  the  consular  dignity, 
and  permission  to  intermarry  into  patrician  families  ;  so  that  every 
success  on  the  side  of  the  people,  only  produced  a  change  in  their 
tyrants.  Under  Louis  the  Xlth  in  France,  a  war  took  place  between 
the  king  and  his  barons,  professedly  for  the  public  good  only ;  and 
they  being  successful,  a  treaty  wras  made  for  the  securing  that  pub¬ 
lic  good  ;  but  it  contained  stipulations  on!]7  in  favor  of  a  few  lords, 
— not  a  word  in  favor  of  the  people.  But  in  England  where  the 
people  had  delegated  all  their  power  to  a  few  representatives,  all 
contests  have  terminated  in  favor  of  the  people.  One  contest  pro¬ 
duced  magna  charta,  containing  stipulations  for  the  good  of  the 
whole.  This  great  charter  was  renewed,  enlarged,  and  confirmed, 
by  several  succeeding  kings  :  the  habeas  corpus  under  Charles  the 
II.,  and  declaration  of  rights  under  William  and  Mary — the  latter 
limited  the  prerogative  of  the  crown,  the  former  establishing  the 
personal  liberty  of  the  subject,  were  also  in  favor  of  the  whole  body 
of  the  people.  Every  revolution  terminated  differently  in  Rome  and 
in  England  ;  in  the  first  they  only  caused  a  change  in  their  masters, 
in  the  second  they  ended  in  a  confirmation  of  their  liberties.  The 
powerful  influence  of  the  people  in  gaining  an  extension  of  their 
liberties  will  appear  more  forcibly,  and  our  confidence  in  our  house 
of  representatives  must  be  increased,  when  wre  come  to  consider  the 
manner  in  which  the  house  of  commons  in  Eng  land  are  elected. 
They  consist  of  553  members,  200  of  whom  are  chosen  by  about 
7000  freeholders  in  the  counties,  cut  of  eight  millions  of  people: 
the  rest  are  chosen  by  towns,  several  of  which,  though  small,  '  g 

/  4  Jfr 

five  members,  and  even  there  are  instances  of  two  represen1/ 

Wf 

.  4^  •  f 


53 


DEBATES. 


[Henrt.- 

being  chosen  by  one  elector.  The  most  baneful  elections  procure, 
seats  ;  one  half  of  the  candidates  purphase  them  :  yet  the  people  ia 
England  have  ever  prevailed  when  they  persisted  in  any  particular 
purpose.  If  then  they  have  prevailed  there  when  opposed  by  two- 
other  powerful  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  when  elected  so  un¬ 
duly,  what  may  we  not  expect  from  our  house  of  representatives 
fairly  chosen  by  the  people!  If  the  people  there  prevail  with  septen¬ 
nial  electtons,  what-  may  we  not  expect  from  our  representatives 
chosen  only  for  two  years,  and  who  only  have  to  encounter  the  fee¬ 
ble  power  of  the  president,  and  a  senate;  whose  interest  will  lead 
them  to  do  their  duty!  The  opposers  of  this  plan  of  government 
dread  the  exercise  of  the  most  necessary,  the  most  indispensible 
powers,  and  exercised  by  their  own  representatives.  Magna  charta, 
and  declaration  of  rights,  only  say,  that  such  powers  shall  not  be 
exercised  but  with  consent  of  parliament;  and  experience  has 
proved,  that  the  making  their  consent  necessary  has  sufficiently 
secured  a  proper  exercise  of  those  powers.  The  best  writers  also 
agree  that  such  powers  may  always  be  lodged  with  representatives. 
We  have  all  the  security  which  a  people  sensible  and  jealous  of 
their  liberties  can  wish  for.  Experience  has  evinced  that  mankind 
can  trust  those  who  have  similar  rights  with  themselves.  Power 
lodged  in  the  hands  of  representatives,  chosen  as  ours  must  be,  can¬ 
not  be  abused.  The  truth  of  this  cannot  but  strike  every  gentleman 
in  the  committee:  and  still  the  peopl  e  can  when  they  please,  change 
the  government,  being  possessed  of  the  supremp  power.  Mr  Nich¬ 
olas  then  quoted  a  passage  from  the  celebrated  Dr  Price, #  who  wTas 
so  strenuous  a  friend  to  America,  proving  that  as  long  as  representa¬ 
tion  and  responsibility  existed  in  any  country,  liberty  could  not  be 
endangered  ; — and  concluded,  by  saying  he  conceived  the  constitu¬ 
tion  founded  on  the  strictest  principles  of  true  policy  and  liberty, 

and  that  he  was  willing  to  trust  his  own  happiness,  and  that  of  his 
posterity,  to  the  operation  of  that  system. 

Mr  HENRY.  Mr  Chairman,  the  public  mind,  as  well  as  my 
own,  is  extremely  uneasy  at  the  proposed  change  of  government. 
Give  me  leave  to  form  one  of  the  number  of  those  who  wish  to  be 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  reasons  of  this  perilous  and  uneasy 
situation — and  why  we  are  brought  hither  to  decide  on  this  great 
national  question.  I  consider  myself  as  the  servant  of  the  people  of 
this  commonwealth,  as  a  sentinel  over  their  rights,  liberty,  and 
happiness.  I  represent  their  feelings  when  1  say,  that  they  are  ex¬ 
ceedingly  uneasy,  being  brought  from  that  state  of  full  security, 
which  they  enjoyed,  to  the  present  delusive  appearance  of  things. 
A  year  ago,  the  minds  of  our  citizens  were  at  perfect  repose.  Before 

the  meeting  of  the  late  federal  convention  at  Philadelphia,  a  general 

^Observations  on  Civil  Liberty. 


53 


taRY.]  VIRGINIA. 

j^eace,  and  an  universal  tranquility  prevailed  in  this  country ;  but 
since  that  period,  they  are  exceedingly  uneasy  and  disquieted. 
When  I  wished  for  an  appointment  to  this  convention,  my  mind  was 
extremely  agitated  for  the  situation  of  public  affairs.  I  conceive  the 
republic  to  be  in  extreme  danger.  If  our  situation  be  thus  uneasy, 
whence  has  arisen  this  fearful  jeopardy?  It  arises  from  this  fatal 
system — it  arises  from  a  proposal  to  change  our  government — a  pro¬ 
posal  that  goes  to  the  utter  annihilation  of  the  most  solemn  engage¬ 
ments  of  the  states ;  a  proposal  of  establishing  nine  states  into  a 
confederacy,  to  the  eventual  exclusion  of  four  states.  It  goes  to  the 
annihilation  of  those  solemn  treaties  we  have  formed  with  foreign  \ 
rations. 

The  present  circumstances  of  France — the  good  offices  rendered 
us  by  that  kingdom,  require  our  most  faithful  and  most  punctual 
adherence  to  our  treaty  with  her.  We  are  in  alliance  with  the  Span* 
iards,  the  Dutch,  the  Prussians  ;  those  treaties  bound  us  as  thirteen 
states,  confederated  together.  Yet  here  is  a  proposal  to  sever  that 
confederacy.  Is  it  possible  that  we  shall  abandon  all  our  treaties 
and  national  engagefrients? — and  for  what?  I  expected  to  have 
heard  the  reasons  for  an  event  so  unexpected  to  my  mind,  and  ma¬ 
ny  others.  Was  our  civil  polity,  or  public  justice,  endangered  or 
sapped  :  Was  the  real  existence  of  the  country  threatened — or  was 
this  preceded  by  a  mournful  progression  of  events?  This  proposal  of 
altering  our  federal  government  is  of  a  most  alarming  nature  .  make 
the  best  of  this  new  government — -say  it  is  composed  by  any  thing 
but  inspiration — you  ought  to  be  extremely  cautious,  watchful,  jeal¬ 
ous  of  your  liberty  ;  for  instead  of  securing  your  rights,  you  may  lose 
them  forever.  If  a  wrong  step  be  now  made,  the  republic  may  be 
lost  forever.  If  this  new  government  will  not  come  lip  to  the  ex¬ 
pectation  of  the  people,  and  they  shall  be  disappointed — their  liber¬ 
ty  will  be  lost,  and  tyranny  must  and  will  arise.  I  repeat  it  again- 
and  1  beg  gentlemen  to  consider,  that  a  Wrong  step  made  now,  will 
plunge  us  into  misery,  and  our  republic  will  be  lost.  It  will  be 
necessary  for  this  convention  to  have  a  faithful  historical  detail 
the  facts,  that  preceded  the  session  of  the  lederal  convention,  and 
the  reasons  that  actuated  its  members  in  proposing  an  entire  altera¬ 
tion  of  government — and  to  demonstrate  the  dangers  that  awaited 
us  :  if  they  were  of  such  awful  magnitude,  as  to  warrant  a  proposal 
so  extremely  perilous  as  this,  I  must,  assert,  that  this  convention  has 
an  absolute  right  to  a  thCrough  discovery  of  every  circumstance 
relative  to  this  great  event.  And  here  I  would  make  this  enquiry 
of  those  worthy  characters  Who  composed  a  part  of  the  late  federal 
convention.  I  am  sure  they  were  fully  impressed  with  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  forming  a  great  consolidated  government,  instead  of  a  con- 


DEBATES. 


54 


[Randolph. 


federation.  That  this  is  a  consolidated  government  is  demonstrably 
clear ;  and  the  danger  of  such  a  government  is,  to  my  my  mind 
very  striking.  I  have  the  highest  veneration  for  those  gentlemen  ; 
but,  sir,  give  me  leave  to  demand,  what  right  had  they  to  say,  We 
the  people]  My  political  curiosity,  exclusive  of  my  anxious  solici¬ 
tude  for  the  public  welfare,  leads  me  to  ask,  who  authorized  them 
to  speak  the  language  of,  We  the  people,  instead  of,  We  the  states? 
States  are  the  characteristics,  and  the  soul  of  a  confederation.  If 
the  states  be  not  the  agents  of  this  compact,  it  must  be  one  great 
consolidated  national  government,  of  the  people  of  all  the  states. 
I  have  the  highest  respect  for  those  gen/lemen  who  formed  the  con¬ 
vention,  and  were  some  of  them  not  here,  I  would  express  some  tes¬ 
timonial  of  esteem  for  them.  Ameiica  had  on  a  former  occasion  put 
the  utmost  confidence  in  them  ;  a  confidence  which  was  well  placed  : 
and  I  am  sure,  sir,  I  would  give  up  any  thing  to  them  ;  I  would 
cheerfully  confide  in  them  as  my  representatives.  But,  sir,  on  this 
great  occasion,  I  would  demand  the  cause  of  their  conduct.  Even 
from  that  illustrious  man,  who  saved  us  by  his  valor,  I  would  have 
a  reason  for  his  conduct — that  liberty  which  he  has  given  us  by  his 
valor,  tells  me  to  ask  this  reason — and  sure  I  am,  were  he  here,  he 
would  give  us  that  reason  :  but  there  are  other  gentlemen  here^ 
who  can  give  us  this  information.  The  people  gave  them  no  power 
to  use  their  name.  That  they  exceeded  their  power  is  perfectly 
clear.  It  is  not  mere  curiosity  that  actuates  me — I  wish  to  hear  the 
real,  actual,  existing  danger,  which  should  lead  us  to  take  those 
steps,  so  dangerous  in  my  conception.  Disorders  have  arisen  in 
other  parts  of  America,  but  here,  sir,  no  dangers,  no  insurrection  of 
tumult  has  happened — every  thing  has  been  calm  and  tranquil.  But 
notwithstanding  this,  we  are  wandering  on  the  great  ocean  of  human 
affairs.  I  see  no  land  mark  to  guide  us.  We  are  running  we  know 
not  whither.  Difference  of  opinion  has  gone  to  a  degree  of  infiam- 
natory  resentment  in  different  parts  of  the  country — which  has  been 
occasioned  by  this  perilous  innovation.  The  federal  convention 
ought  to  have  amended  the  old  system — for  this  purpose  they  were 
solely  delegated  :  the  object  of  their  mission  extended  to  no  other 
consideration.  You  must,  therefore,  forgive  the  solicitation  of  one 
unworthy  member,  to  know  what  danger  could  have  arisen  under 
the  present  confederation,  and  what  are  the  causes  of  this  proposal 
t'O  change  our  government. 

Governor  RANDOLPH.  Mr.  Chairman,  had  the  most  enlight¬ 
ened  statesman,  whom  America  has  yet  seen,  foretold  but  a  year 
ago,  the  crisis  which,  has  now  called  us  together,  he  would  have 
been  confronted  by  the  universal  testimony  of  history ;  for  never  was 
it  yet  known,  that  in  so  short  a  space,  by  the  peaceable  working  of 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


55 


events,  without  a  war,  or  even  the  menace  of  the  smallest  force,  a 
nation  has  been  brought  to  agitate  a  question,  an  error  in  the  issue  of 
which,  may  blast  their  happiness.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be  feared 
lest  to  this  trying  exigency,  the  best  wisdom  should  be  unequal,  and 
here,  (if  it  were  allowable  to  lament  any  ordinance  of  nature)  might 
it  he  deplored,  that  in  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  a  subject,  is 
the  mind  intemperate.  Religion,  the  dearest  of  all  interests,  has  too 
often  sought  proselytes  by  fire,  rather  than  by  reason;  and  poli¬ 
tics,  the  next  in  rank,  is  too  often  nourished  by  passion,  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  the  understanding.  Pardon  me,  however,  for  expecting 
one  exception  to  the  tendency  of  mankind — from  the  dignity  of  this 
convention,  a  mutual  toleration,  and  a  persuasion  that  no  man  has  a 
right  to  impose  his  opinion  on  others.  Pardon  me  too,  sir,  if  I  am 
particularly  sanguine  in  my  expectations  from  the  chair — it  well 
knows  what  is  order,  how  to  command  obedience,  and  that  politi¬ 
cal  opinions  may  be  as  honest  on  one  side  as  on  the  other.  Before 
I  press  into  the  body  of  the  argument,  I  must  take  the  liberty  of 
mentioning  the  part  I  have  already  borne  in  this  great  question :  but 
let  me  not  here  be  misunderstood.  I  come  not  to  apologise  to  any 
individual  within  these  walls,  to  the  convention  as  a  body,  or  even 
to  my  fellow  citizens  at  large.  Having  obeyed  the  impulse  of  duty, 
having  satisfied  my  conscience,  and  I  trust,  my  God,  I  shall  appeal 
to  no  other  tribunal  ;  nor  do  I  come  a  candidate  for  popularity  :  mj' 
manner  of  life  has  never  yet  betrayed  such  a  desire.  The  highest 
honors  and  emoluments  of  this  commonwealth,  are  a  poor  comped, 
sation  for  the  surrender  of  personal  independence.  The  history  of 
England,  from  the  revolution,  and  that  of  Virginia,  for  more  than 
twenty  years  past,  shew  the  vanity  of  a  hope,  that  general  favor 
should  ever  follow  the  man,  who,  without  partiality  or  prejudice, 
praises  or  disapproves  the  opinions  of  friends  or  of  foes :  nay,  I 
might  enlarge  the  field,  and  declare,  from  the  great  volume  of  hu¬ 
man  nature  itself,  that  to  be  moderate  in  politics,  forbids  an  ascent  to 
the  summit  of  political  fame.  But,  come  hither,  regardless  of  al¬ 
lurements,  to  continue  as  I  have  begun,  to  repeat  my  earnest  endea¬ 
vors  for  a  firm  energetic  government,  to  enforce  my  objectious  to  the 
constitution  and  to  concur  in  any  practical  scheme  of  amendments; 
but  I  never  will  assent  to  any  scheme  that  will  operate  a  dissolution 
of  the  union,  or  any  measure  which  may  lead  to  it. 

This  conduct  may  possibly  be  upbraided  as  injurious  to  my  own 
views  ;  if  it  be  so  it  is  at  least,  the  natural  offspring  of  my  judgment. 
I  refused  to  sign,  and  if  the  same  were  to  return,  again  would  I  re¬ 
fuse.  Wholly  to  adopt  or  wholly  to  reject,  as  proposed  by  the  con¬ 
vention,  seemed  too  hard  an  alternative  to  the  citizens  of  America, 
whose  servants  we  were,  and  whose  pretentions  amply  to  discuss 


56 


[Randolph* 


DEBATES.  \ 

the  means  of  their  happiness  were  undeniable.  Even  if  adopted 
under  the  terror  of  impending  anarchy, the  governmentmust  have  been 
without  the  safest  bulwark,  the  hearts  of  the  people — and  if  rejected 
because  the  chance  for  amendments  was  cut  off,  the  union  would 
have  been  irredeemably  lost.  This  seems  to  have  been  verified  by 
the  event  in  Massachusetts  ;  but  our  assembly  have  removed  these 
inconveniences,  by  propounding  the  constitution  to  our  full  and  free 
enquiry.  When  I  withheld  my  subscription,  I  had  not  even  the 
glimpse  of  the  genius  of  America,  relative  to  the  principles  of  the  new 
constitution.  Who,  arguing  from  the  preceding  history  of  Virginia 
could  have  divined  that  she  was  prepared  for  the  important  change'? 
In  former  times  indeed,  she  transcended  every  colony  in  professions 
and  practices  of  loyalty  ;  but  she  opened  a  perilous  war,  under  a  de- 
mocracy  almost  as  pure  as  representation  would  admit :  she  supported 
it  under  a  constitution  which  subjects  all  rule,  authority  and  power,  to 
the  legislature  ;  every  attempt  to  alter  it  had  been  baffled  :  the  in¬ 
crease  ofcongresssional  power,  had  always  excited  an  alarm,  I  there¬ 
fore  would  not  bind  myself  to  uphold  the  new  constitution,  before  I 
had  tried  it  by  the  true  touchstone  ;  especially  too,  when  1  foresaw, 
that  even  the  members  of  the  general  convention,  might  be  instruct¬ 
ed  by  the  comments,  of  these  who  were  without  doors.  But,  I  had 
moreover  objections  to  the  constitution,  the  most  material  of  which, 
too  lengthy  in  detail,  I  have  as  yet  barely  stated  to  the  public,  but 
shall  explain  when  we  arrive  at  the  proper  points.  Amendments 
were  consequently  my  wish  ;  these  were  the  grounds  of  my  repug¬ 
nance  to  subscribe, and  were  perfectly  reconcileable  with  my  unaltera¬ 
ble  resolution,  to  be  regulated  by  the  spirit  of  America,  if  after  our 
best  efforts  for  amendments,  they  could  not  be  removed.  I  freely  in¬ 
dulge  those  who  may  think  this  declaration  too  candid,  in  believing, 
that  I  hereby  depart  from  the  concealment  belonging  to  the  character 
of  a  statesman.  Their  censure  would  be  more  reasonable,  were  it 
not  for  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  the  spirit  of  America  depends 
upon  a  combination  of  circumstances,  which  no  individual  can  con¬ 
trol,  and  arises  not  from  the  prospect  of  advantages  which  may  be 
gained  by  the  arts  of  negotiation,  but  from  deeper  and  more  honest 
causes. 

As  with  me  the  only  question  has  ever  been,  between  previous  and 
subsequent  amendments,  so  will  I  express  my  apprehensions,  that 
the  postponement  of  this  convention,  to  so  late  a  day,  has  extin¬ 
guished  the  probability  of  the  former  without  inevitable  ruin  to  the 
union,  and  the  union  is  the  anchor  of  our  political  salvation  ;  and  I 
will  assent  to  the  lopping  of  this  limb  (meaning  his  arm)  before  I 
assent  to  the  dissolution  of  the  union.  I  shall  now  follow  the  hon. gen¬ 
tleman  (Mr.  Henry)  in  his  enquiry.  Before  the  meeting  of  the  fed- 


Hxndolph.]  VIRGINIA.  57 

sral  convention,  says  the  hon.  gentleman,  we  rested  in  peace  ;  a 
miracle  it  was,  that  we  were  so  :  miraculous  must  it  appear  to  those 
who  consider  the  distresses  of  the  war,  and  the  no  less  afflicting  ca¬ 
lamities,  which  we  suffered  in  the  succeeding  peace. — Be  so  good 
ns  to  recollect  how  we  fared  under  the  confederation.  I  am  ready  to 
pour  forth  sentiments  of  the  fullest  gratitude  to  those  gentlemen  who 
framed  that  system.  I  believe  they  had  the  most  enlightened  heads 
in  this  western  hemisphere  : — notwithstanding  their  intelligence, 
and  earnest  solicitude,  for  the  good  of  their  country,  this  system  prov¬ 
ed  totally  inadequate  to  the  purpose,  for  which  it  was  devised  ;  hut, 
sir,  this  was  no  disgrace  to  them  ;  the  subject  of  confederations  was 
then  new,  and  the  necessity  of  speedily  forming  some  government 
for  the  states,  to  defend  them  against  the  pressing  dangers,  prevented 
perhaps,  those  able  statesmen  from  making  that  system  as  perfect  as 
more  leisure  and  deliberation  might  have  enabled  them  to  do  :  lean- 
not  otherwise  conceive  how  they  could  have  formed  a  system,  that 
provided  no  means  of  enforcing  the  powers  which  were  nominally 
given  it.  Was  it  not  a  political  farce,  to  pretend  to  vest  powers, 
without  accompanying  them  with  the  means  of  putting  them  in  ex¬ 
ecution?  This  want  of  energy  was  not  a  greater  solecism  than  the 
blending  together,  and  vesting  in  one  body,  all  the  branches  of  gov* 
ernment.  The  utter  inefficacy  of  this  -system  was  discovered  the 
moment  the  danger  was  over,  by  the  introduction  of  peace  ;  the  ao 
cumulated  public  misfortunes,  that  resulted  from  its  inefficacy  ren¬ 
dered  an  alteration  necessary  :  this  necessity  was  obvious  to  all 
America:  attempts  have  accordingly  been  made  for  thispupose. 

I  have  been  a  witness  to  this  business  from  its  earliest  begining, 
I  was  honored  with  a  seat  in  the  small  convention  held  at  Annapo¬ 
lis.  The  members  of  that  convention  thought  unanimously  that  the 
control  of  commerce  should  be  given  to  congress,  and  recommended 
to  their  states  to  extend  the  improvement  to  the  whole  system.  The 
members  of  the  general  convention  were  particularly  deputed  to  me¬ 
liorate  the  confederation.  On  a  thorough  contemplation  of  the  sub¬ 
ject,  they  found  it  impossible  to  amend  that  system  :  what  was  to  be 
done?  The  danger  of  America,  which  will  be  shewn  at  another  time 
by  particular  enumeration,  suggested  the  expedient  of  forming  a  new 
plan  ;  the  confederation  has  done  a  great  deal  for  us,  we  all  allow, 
but  it  was  the  danger  of  a  powerful  enemy,  and  thespirit  of  America* 
sir,  and  not  any  energy  in  that  system  that  carried  us  through  that 
perilous  war:  for  what  were  its  best  arms?  The  greatest  exertions 
were  made,  when  the  danger  was  most  eminent.  This  system  was 
not  signed  till  March,  1781  ;  Maryland  having  not  acceded  to  it  be¬ 
fore;  yet  the  military  achievements  and  other  exertions  of  America, 
previous  to  that  period,  were  as  brilliant,  effectual,  and  successtul, 


58 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


as  they  could  have  been  under  the  most  energetic  government.  This 
clearly  shews,  that  our  perilous  situation  was  the  cement  of  our  union. 
How  different  the  scene  when  this  peril  vanished,  and  peace  was 
restored!  The  demands  of  congress  were  treated  with  neglect. 
One  state  complained  that  another  had  not  paid  its  quotas  as  well 
as  itself — Public  credit  gone — for  I  believe  were  it  not  for  the  pri¬ 
vate  credit  of  individuals  we  should  have  been  ruined  long  before 
that  time.  Commerce  languishing — produce  falling  in  value,  and 
justice  trampled  under  foot.  We  became  contemptible  in  the  eye3 
of  foreign  nations  ;  they  discarded  us  as  little  wanton  bees  who  had 
played  for  liberty,  but  had  no  sufficient  solidity  or  wisdom  to  secure 
it  on  a  permanent  basis,  and  were  therefore  unworthy  of  their  regard. 
It  was  found  that  congress  could  not  even  enforce  the  observance  of 
treaties.  That  treaty  under  which  we  enjoy  our  present  tranquility 
was  disregarded.  Making  no  difference  between  the  justice  of  pay¬ 
ing  debts  due  to  people  here,  and  that  of  paying  those  due  to 
people  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  I  wished  to  see  the  treaty 
complied  with,  by  the  payment  of  the  British  debts,  but  have  not 
been  able  to  know  why  has  it  been  neglected.  What  was  the  reply 
to  the  demands  and  requisitions  of  congress'? — You  are  too  contempti¬ 
ble,  we  will  dispise  and  disregard  you. 

I  shall  endeavor  to  satisfy  the  gentleman’s  political  curiosity. 
Did  not  our  compliance  with  any  demand  of  congress  depend  on 
our  own  free  will? — if  we  refused,  I  know  of  no  coercive  force  to 
compel  a  compliance:  after  meeting  in  convention,  the  deputies 
from  the  states  communicated  their  information  to  one  another  ;  on 
a  review  of  our  critical  situation,  and  of  the  impossibility  of  intro¬ 
ducing  any  degree  of  improvement  into  the  old  system,  what  ought 
they  to  have  done?  Would  it  not  have  been  treason  to  return  with¬ 
out  proposing  some  scheme  to  relieve  their  distressed  country? 
The  honorable  gentleman  asks,  why  we  should  adopt  a  system,  that 
shall  annihilate  and  destroy  our  treaties  with  France  and  other  na¬ 
tions?  I  think,  the  misfortune  is,  that  these  treaties  are  violated 
already,  under  the  honorable  gentleman’s  favorite  system.  I  con¬ 
ceive  that  our  engagements  with  foreign  nations  are  not  at  all  affec¬ 
ted  by  this  system;  for  the  sixth  article  expressly  provides,  that 
“  all  debts  contracted,  and  engagements  entered  into  before  the  a- 
doption  of  this  constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United 
States  under  this  constitution,  as  under  the  confederation.”  Does 
this  system,  then,  cancel  debts  due  to  or  from  the  continent?  Is  it 
not  a  well  known  maxim  that  no  change  of  situation  can  alter  an 
obligation  once  rightly  entered  into?  He  also  objects  because  nine 
states  are  sufficient  to  put  the  government  in  motion:  what  number 
of  states  ought  we  to  have  said?  Ought  we  to  have  required  the 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


59 


concurrence  of  all  the  thirteen?  Rhode-Island,  in  rebellion  against 
integrity  :  Rhode-Island  plundered  all  the  world  by  her  paper  mon¬ 
ey,  and  notorious  for  her  uniform  opposition  to  every  federal  duty, 
would  then  have  it  in  her  power  to  defeat  the  union,  and  may  we  not 
judge  with  absolute  certainty  from  her  past  conduct,  that  she  would 
do  so?  Therefore,  to  have  required  the  ratification  of  all  the  thir¬ 
teen  states  would  have  been  tantamount  to  returning  without  having 
done  any  thing.  What  other  number  would  have  been  proper? 
Twelve?  The  same  spirit  that  has  actuated  me  in  the  whole  pro¬ 
gress  of  the  business,  would  have  prevented  me  from  leaving  it  in 
the  power  of  any  one  state  to  dissolve  the  union  :  for  would  it  not 
be  lamentable,  that  nothing  could  be  done  for  the  defection  of  one 
state?  A  majority  of  the  whole  would  have  been  too  few.  Nine 
states  therefore  seem  to  be  a  mosi  proper  number. 

The  gentleman  then  proceeds,  and  inquires,  why  we  assumed  the 
language  of  “  We  the  people?”  I  ask  why  not?  The  government 
is  for  the  people  ;  and  the  misfortune  was,  that  the  people  had  no 
agency  in  the  government  before.  The  congress  had  no  power  to 
make  peace  and  war,  under  the  old  confederation.  Granting  pass¬ 
ports,  by  the  law,  of  nations,  is  annexed  to  this  power  ;  yet  congress 
was  reduced  to  the  humiliating  condition  of  being  obliged  to  send 
deputies  to  Virginia  to  solicit  a  passport.  Notwithstanding  the  ex¬ 
clusive  power  of  war,  given  to  congress,  the  second  article  of  the 
confederation  was  interpreted  to  forbid  that  body  to  grant  a  pass¬ 
port  for  tobacco,  which  during  the  war,  and  in  pursuance  of  engage¬ 
ments  made  at  Little  York,  was  to  have  been  sent  into  New-York. 
What  harm  is  there  in  consulting  the  people,  on  the  construction  of 
a  government  by  wThich  they  are  to  be  bound?  Is  it  unfair?  Is  it 
unjust?  If  the  government  is  to  be  binding  on  the  people,  are  not 
the  people  the  proper  persons  to  examine  its  merits  or  defects?  1 
take  this  to  be  one  of  the  least  and  most  trivial  objections  that  will 
be  made  to  the  constitution — it  carries  the  answer  with  itself.  In 
the  whole  of  this  business,  I  have  acted  in  the  strictest  obedience 
to  the  dictates  of  my  conscience,  in  discharging  what  I  conceive  to 
be  my  duty  to  my  country.  I  refused  my  signature,  and  if  the 
same  reasons  operated  on  my  mind,  I  wrould  still  refuse;  but  as  I 
think  that  those  eight  states  which  have  adopted  the  constitution 
will  not  recede,  I  am  a  friend  to  the  union. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  whether  the  constitu¬ 
tion  be  good  or  bad,  the  present  clause  clearly  discovers,  that  it  is  a 
national  government,  and  no  longer  a  confederation.  I  mean  that 
clause  which  gives  the  first  hint  of  the  general  government  laying 
direct  taxes.  The  assumption  of  this  power  of  laying  direct  taxes,, 
does  of  itself,  entirely  change  the  confederation  of  the  states  into 


DEBATES. 


SO 


[Mason. 


one  consolidated  government.  This  power  being  at  discretion,  un¬ 
confined,  and  without  any  kind  of  control,  must  carry  every  thing 
before  it.  The  very  idea  of  converting  what  was  formerly  a  confed¬ 
eration,  to  a  consolidated  government,  is  totally  subversive  of  every 
principle  which  has  hitherto  governed  us.  This  power  is  calculated 
to  annihilate  totally  the  state  governments.  Will  the  people  of  this 
great  community  submit  to  be  individually  taxed  by  two  different 
and  distinct  powers  ?  Will  they  suffer  themselves  to  be  doubly 
harrassed  ?  These  two  concurrent  powers  cannot  exist  long  togeth¬ 
er  ;  the  one  will  destroy  the  other :  the  general  government  being 
paramount  to,  and  in  every  respect  more  powerful  than  the  state  go¬ 
vernments,  the  latter  must  give  way  to  the  former.  Is  it  to  be  sup¬ 
posed  that  one  national  government  will  suit  so  extensive  a  country, 
embracing  so  many  climates,  and  containing  inhabitants,  so  very 
different  in  manners,  habits,  and  customs  ?  It  is  ascertained  by  his¬ 
tory,  that  there  never  was  a  government,  over  a  very  extensive  coun¬ 
try,  without  destroying  the  liberties  of  the  people  :  history  also,  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  opinions  of  the  best  writers,  shews  us,  that  monarchy 
may  suit  a  large  territory,  and  despotic,  governments  eVer  so  exten¬ 
sive  a  country:  but  that  popular  governments  can  only  exist  in  small 
territories.  Is  there  a  single  example,  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  to 
support  a  contrary  opinion!  Where  is  there  one  exception  to  this 
general  rule?  Was  there  ever  an  instance  of  a  general  national  go¬ 
vernment  extending  over  so  extensive  a  country,  abounding  in  such 
a  variety  of  climates,  &c>  where  the  people  retained  their  liberty?  I 
solemnly  declare,  that  no  man  is  a  greater  friend  to  a  fitm  union  of 
the  American  states  than  1  am  :  but,  sir,  if  this  great  end  can  be  ob¬ 
tained  without  hazarding  the  rights  of  the  people,  why  should  we 
recur  to  such  dangerous  principles?  Requisitions  have  been  often 
refused,  sometimes  from  an  impossibility  of  complying  With  them  ; 
often  from  that  great  variety  of  circumstances  which  retard  the  col¬ 
lection  of  monies,  and  perhaps,  sometimes  from  a  wilful  design  of 
procrastinating.  But  why  shall  We  give  up  to  the  national  govern¬ 
ment  this  power,  so  dangerous  in  its  nature,  and  for  which  its  mem¬ 
bers  will  not  have  sufficient  information?  Is  it  not  well  known,  that 
what  would  be  a  proper  tax  in  one  state,  would  be  grevious  in  an¬ 
other.  The  gentleman  who  hath  favored  us  with  an  eulogium  in 
favor  of  this  system,  must,  after  all  the  encomiums  he  has  been 
pleased  to  bestow  upon  it,  acknowledge,  that  our  federal  representa¬ 
tives  must  be  unacquainted  with  the  situation  of  their  constituents  : 
sixty-five  members  cannot  possibly  know  the  situation  and  circum¬ 
stances  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  this  immense  continent :  when  a 
Certain  sum  comes  to  be  taxed,  and  the  mode  of  levying  to  be  fixed, 
4hey  will  lay  the  tax  on  that  article  which  will  on  most  productive, 


Mason,  y 


VIRGINIA. 


and  easiest  in  the  collection,  without  consulting  the  real  circunw 
stances  or  convenience  of  a  country,  with  which,  in  fact,  they  can¬ 
not  be  sufficiently  acquainted. 

The  mode  of  levying  taxes  is  of  the  utmost  consequence,  and  yet 
here  It  is  to  be  determined  by  those  who  have  neither  knowledge  of 
our  situation,  nor  a  common  interest  with  us,  nor  a  fellow  feeling 
for  us; — the  subjects  of  taxation  differ  in  three-fourths  ;  nay,  I  might 
say  with  truth,  in  four-fifths  of  the  state: — if  we  trust  the  national 
government  with  an  effectual  way  of  raising  the  necessary  sums,  it 
is  sufficient:  every  thing  we  do  further  is  trusting  the  happiness  and 
rights  of  the  people  :  why  then  should  we  give  up  this  dangerous- 
power  of  individual  taxation]  Why  leave  the  manner  of  laving, 
taxes  to  those,  who  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  bte  acquainted 
with  the  situation  of  those  on  wh()m  they  are- to  impose  them,  when 
it  can  be  done  by  those  who  are  well  acquainted  with  it  !  If  instead 
of  giving  this,  oppressive  power,  we  give  them  such  an  effectual 
alternative  as  will  answer  the  purpose,  without  encountering  the 
evil  and  danger  that  might  arise  from  it,  then  I  would  cheerfully 
acquiesce  :  and  would  it  not  be  far  more  eligible!  I  candidly  ac¬ 
knowledge  the  inefficacy  of  the  confederation,  but  requisitions  have 
been  made,,  which  were  impossible  to  be  complied, with:  requisitions, 
for  more  gold  and  silver  than  were  in  the  United  States.  If  we  give 
the  general  government  the  power  of  demanding  their  quotas  of  the 
states,  with  an  alternative  of  laying  direct  taxes,  in  case  of  non-, 
compliance,  then  the  mischief  would  be  avoided  ;  and  the  certainty 
of  this  conditional  powTer  would,  in  all  human  probability,  prevent 
the  application,  and  the  sums  necessary  for  the  union  would  be  then 
laid  by  the  states,  by  those  who  know  how  it  can  best  be  raised,  by 
those  who  have  a  fellow  feeling  for  us.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that 
the  sum  raised  one  way  with  convenience  and  ease,  would  be  very 
oppressive  another  way :  why  then  not  leave  this  power  to  be  exer-^ 
cised  by  those  who  knew  the  mode  most  convenient  for  the  inhabi¬ 
tants,  and  not  by  those  who  must  necessarily  apportion  it  in  such 
manner  as  shall  be  oppressive.2  With  respect  to  the  representation 
so  much  applauded,  I  cannot  think  it  such  a  full  and  free  one  as  it 
is  represented  ;  but  I  must  candidly  acknowledge  that  this  defect 
results  from  the  very  nature  of  the  government.  It  would  be  im¬ 
possible  to  have  a  full  and  adequate  repres  entation  in  the  general 
government ;  it  would  be  too  expensive  and  too  unwieldy  :  we  are 
then  under  the  necessity  of  having  this  a  very  inadequate  represen¬ 
tation  ;  is  this  general  representation  to  be  compared  with  the  real 
actual,  substantial  representation  of  the  state  legislatures'?  It  can¬ 
not  bear  a  comparison.  To  make  representation  real  and  actual,  the 
number  of  representatives  ought  to  be  adequate  they  ought  to  mix 


m 


DEBATES. 


[Mason”. 

with  the  people,  think  as  they  think,  feel  as  they  feel,  ought  to  be 
perfectly  amenable  to  them,  and  thoroughly  acquainted  with  their 
interest  and  condition  :  now  the  great  ingredients  are,  either  not  at 
all,  or  in  a  small  degree,  to  be  found  in  our  federal  representatives, 
that  we  have  no  real,  actual,  substantial  representation  :  but  I 
acknowledge  it  results  from  the  nature  of  the  government :  the 
necessity  of  this  inconvenience  may  appear  a  sufficient  reason  not  to 
argue  against  it:  but,  sir,  it  clearly  shews,  that  we  ought  to  give 
power  with  a  sparing  hand  to  a  government  thus  imperfectly  con-  _ 
structed.  To  a  government  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot 
but  be  defective,  no  powers  ought  to  be  given,  but  such  as  are  ab¬ 
solutely  necessary  :  there  is  one  thing  in  it  which  I  conceive  to  be 
extremely  dangerous.  Gentlemen  may  talk  of  public  virtue  and 
confidence  ;  we  shall  be  told  that  the  house  of  representatives  will 
consist  of  the  most  virtuous  men  on  the  continent,  and  that  in  their 
hands  we  may  trust  our  dearest  rights.  This,  like  all  other  assem¬ 
blies,  will  be  composed  of  some  bad  and  some  good  men ;  and  con¬ 
sidering  the  natural  lust  of  power  so  inherent  in  man,  I  fear  the 
thirst  of  power  will  prevail  to  oppress  the  people: — what  I  conceive 
to  be  so  dangerous,  is  the  provision  with  respect  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  representatives  :  it  does  not  expressly  provide  that  we 
shall  have  one  for  every  30,000,  but  that  the  number  shall  not  ex¬ 
ceed  that  proportion.  The  utmost  that  we  can  exepct  (and  perhaps 
that  is  too  much). is,  that  the  present  number  shall  be  continued  to 
us: — “the  number  of  representatives  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every 
30,000.”  now  will  not  this  be  complied  with,  although  the  present 
number  should  never  be  increased ;  nay,  although'  it  should  be 
decreased  1  Suppose  congress  should  say  that  we  should  have  one 
for  every  20,000,  will  not  the  constitution  be  complied  with  1  For 
one  for  every  20,000  does  not  exceed  one  for  every  30,000:  There 
is  a  want  of  proportion  that  ought  to  be  strictly  guarded  against ; 
the  worthy  gentleman  tells  us  that  we  have  no  reason  to  fear  ;  but 
I  always  fear  for  the  rights  of  the  people,  I  do  not  pretend  to  inspir¬ 
ation,  but  I  think  it  is  apparent  as  the  day,  that  the  members  will 
attend  to  local  partial  interests  to  prevent  an  augmentation  of  their 
number:  I  know  not  how  they  will  be  chosen,  but  whatever  be  the 
mode  of  choosing,  our  present  number  will  be  ten  ;  and  suppose  our 
state  is  laid  off  in  ten  districts,  those  gentlemen  who  shall  be  sent 
from  those  districts  will  lessen  their  own  power  and  influence,  in 
their  respective  districts  if  they  increase  their  number,  for  the 
greater  the  number  of  men  among  whom  any  given  quantum  of 
power  is  divided,  the  less  the  power  of  each  individual.  Thus  they 
will  have  a  local  interest  to  prevent  the  increase  of,  and  perhaps 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


63 


they  will  lessen  their  own  number :  this  is  evident  on  the  face  of 
the  constitution,  so  loose  an  expression  ought  to  be  guarded  against, 
for  congress  will  be  clearly  within  the  requisition  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  although  the  number  of  representatives  should  always  continue 
what  it  is  now,  and  the  population  of  the  country  should  increase  to 
an  immensb  number.  Nay,  they  may  reduce  the  number  from  65, 
to  one  from  each  state,  without  violating  the  constitution ;  and  thus 
the  number  which  is  now  too  small,  would  then  be  infinitely  too 
much  so :  but  my  principal  objection  is,  that  the  confederation  is 
converted  to  one  general  consolidated  government,  which,  from  my 
best  judgrpent  of  it  (and  which  perhaps  will  be  shewn  in  the  course 
of  this  discussion,  to  be  really  well  founded)  is  one  of  the  worst 
curses  that  can  possibly  befal  a  nation.  Does  any  man  suppose, 
that  one  general  national  government  can  exist  in  so  extensive  a 
country  as  this!  I  hope  that  a  goverment  may  be  framed  which 
may  suit  us,  by  drawing  a  line  between  the  general  and  state  go¬ 
vernments,  and  prevent  that  dangerous  clashing  of  interest  and 
power,  which  must,  as  it  now  stands,  terminate  in  the  destruction 
of  one  or  the  other.  When  we  come  to  the  judiciary,  we  shall  be 
more  convinced,  that  this  government  will  terminate  in  the  annihil¬ 
ation  of  the  state  governments  :  the  question  then  will  be,  whether  a 
consolidated  government  can  preserve  the  freedom,  and  secure  the 
rights  of  the  people. 

If  such  amendments  be  introduced  as  shall  exclude  danger,  I 
shall  most  gladly  put  my  hand  to  it.  When  such  amendments,  as 
shall,  from  the  best  information,  secure  the  great  essential  rights 
of  the  people,  shall  be  agreed  to  by  gentlemen,  I  shall  most  heartily 
make  the  greatest  concessions,  and  concur  in  any  reasonable  meas¬ 
ure  to  obtain  the  desirable  end  of  conciliation  and  unanimity.  An 
indispensable  amendment  in  this  case,  is,  that  congress  shall  not 
exercise  the  power  of  raising  direct  taxes  till  the  states  shall  have 
refused  to  comply  with  the  requisitions  of  congress.  On  this  con¬ 
dition  it  may  be  granted,  but  I  see  no  rqason  to  grant  it  uncondition¬ 
ally  ;  as  the  states  can  raise  the  taxes  with  more  ease  and  lay  them 
on  the  inhabitants  with  more  propriety,  than  it  is  possible  for  the 
general  government  to  do.  If  congress  hath  this  power  without 
control,  the  taxes  will  be  laid  by  those  who  have  no  fellow-feeling 
or  acquaintance  with  the  people.  This  is  my  objection  to  the  arti¬ 
cle  now  under  consideration.  It  is  a  very  great  and  important  one. 

I  therefore,  beg  gentlemen  to  consider  it.  Should  this  power  be  re¬ 
strained,  I  shall  withdraw  my  objections  to  this  part  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  :  but  as  it  stands,  it  is  an  objection  so  strong  in  my  mind,  thaf 
its  amendment  is  with  me,  a  sine  qua  non,  of  its  adoption.  I  wish 
for  such  amendments  and  such,  only,  as  are  necessary  to  secure  the 
dearest  rights  of  the  people. 


DEBATES. 


[Mad  i  soi?.. 


$? 

Mr.  MADISON _ Mr.  Chairman,  it  would  give  me  great  pleas¬ 

ure  to  concur  with  my  honorable  colleague  in  any  conciliatory  plan.. 
The  clause  to  which  the  worthy  member  alludes,  is  only  explanato¬ 
ry  of  the  proportion  which  representation  and  taxation  shall  respec¬ 
tively  bear  to  one  another  :  the  power  of  laying  direct  taxes  will  be 
more  properly  discussed,  when  we  come  to  that  part  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  which  vests  that  power  in  congress.  At  present  I  must  endeavor 
to  reconcile  our  proceedings  to  the  resolution  we  have  taken,  by  post¬ 
poning  the  examination  of  this  power  till  we  come  properly  to  it. 
With  respect  to  converting  the  confederation  to  a  complete  consoli¬ 
dation,  I  think  no  such  consequence  will  follow  from  the  constitu¬ 
tion  ;  and  that  with  more  attention  we  will  see  that  he  is  mistaken  : 
and  with  respect  to  the  number  of  representatives,  I  reconcile  it  to 
my  mind,  when  I  consider,  that  it  may  be  increased  to  the  proportion 
fixed ,  and  that  as  it  may  be  so  increased,  it  shall,  because  it  is  the 
interest  of  those  who  alone  can  prevent  it,  who  are  oar  representa¬ 
tives,  and  who  depend  on  their  good  behaviour  for  their  re-election. 
Let  me  observe  also,  that  as  far  as  the  number  of  representatives 
may  seem  to  be  adequate  to  discharge  their  duty,  they  will  have 
sufficient  information  from  the  laws  of  particular  states,  from  the 
state  legislatures,  from  their  own  experience,  and  from  a  great  num¬ 
ber  of  individuals  :  and  as  to  our  security  against  them,  I  conceive, 
sir,  that  the  general  limitation  of  their  poweis,  and  the  general 
watchfulness  of  the  states,  will  be  a  sufficient  guard.  As  it  is  now 

late,  I  shall  defer  any  further  investigation  till  a  more  convenient 
time*  ' 

The  committee  then  rose — and  on  motion — 

Resolved ,  That  this  convention  will,  to  morrow,  again  resolve  it¬ 
self  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  to  take  into  farther 
consideration,  the  proposed  constitution  of  government. 

And  then  the  convention  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning, 
eleven  o’clock. 

Thursday ,  the  5th  of  June ,  1 78S. 

Mr.  HARRISON  reported  from  the  committee  of  privileges  and 
elections,  that  the  committee  had,  according  to  order,  had  under 
their  consideration,  the  petition  of  Samuel  Anderson  to  them  refer¬ 
red,  and  had  come  to  a  resolution  thereupon,  which  he  read  in  his 
place,  and  afterwards  delivered  in  at  the  clerk’s  table,  where  the 
same  was  again  twice  read,  and  agreed  to  by  the  house,  as  follow- 
eth : 

Resolved ,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  thi  s  committee,.  That  the  petition 
of  the  said  Samuel'  Anderson,  praying  that  the'election  of  Mr.  Thom¬ 
as  H.  Drew,  a  member  returned  to  serve  in  this  convention  for  the 
county  of  Cumberland,  may  be  set.  aside  and  a  new  election  had  to 
supply  his  plafee,  be  rejected 


Harrison;] 


VIRGINIA. 


€5 


Mr.  HARRISON  reported  from  the  committee  of  privileges  and 
elections,  that  the  committee  had,  according  to  order,  examined  the 
Teturns  of  the  election  of  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention  for 
the  county  of  Westmoreland,  and  had  come  to  a  resolution  there¬ 
upon,  which  he  read  in  this  place,  and  afterwards  delivered  in  at 7. 
the  clerk’s  table,  where  the  same  was  again  twice  read,  and  agreed 
to  by  the  house,  as  followeth-: 

Resolved ,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee ,  That  the  return  of 
the  election  of  delegates  to  serve  in  this  convention,  for  the  said 
county  of  Westmoreland,  is  satisfactory. 

The  convention,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  resolved  itself 
into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,  to  take  into  farthe  r  con¬ 
sideration,  the  proposed  £lan  of  govern/ment.  Mr.  Wythe  in  the 
chair. 

The  first  and  second  sections,  still  under  consideration. 

Mr.  PENDLETON.  Mr<  Chairman,  my  worthy  friend  (Mr  Hen¬ 
ry)  has  expressed  great  uneasiness  in  his  mind,  and  informed  us  that 
a  great  many  of  our  citizens  are  also  extremely  uneasy,  at  the  pro¬ 
posal  of  Jchanging  our  government ;  but  that  a  year  ago,  before  this 
fatal  system  was  thought  of,  the  public  mind  was  at  perfect  repose  . 
it  is  necessary  to  inquire,  whether  the  public  mind  was  at  ease  on 
the  subject,  and  if  it  be  since  disturbed,  what  was  the  cause?  What  , 
was  the  situation  of  this  country,  before  the  meeting  of  the  federal 
convention?  Our  general  government  was  totally  inadequate  to  the 
purpose  of  its  institution  ;  our  commerce  decayed ;  our  finances 
deranged;  public  and  private  credit  destroyed:  these  and  many 
other  national  evils,  rendered  necessary  the  meeting  of  that  conven¬ 
tion.  If  the  public  mind  was  then  at  ease,  it  did  not  result  from  a 
conviction  of  being  in  a  happy  and  easy  situation  :  it  must  have  been 
an  inactive  unaccountable  stupor.  The  federal' convention  devised 
the  paper  on  your  table,  as  a  remedy  to  remove  our  political  diseases. 
What  has  created  the  public  uneasiness  since?  Not  public  reports, 
which  are  net  to  be  depended  upon  ;  but  mistaken  apprehensions  of 
danger  drawn  from  observations  on  governments  which  do  not  apply 
to  us.  When  we  come  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  most  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  world,  we  shall  find,  that  they  are  generally  dictated 
by  a  conqueror  at  the  point  of  the  sword,  or  are  the  offspring  of  con¬ 
fusion,  when  a  great  popular  leader  taking  advantage  of  circumstan¬ 
ces,  if  not  producing  them,  restores  order  at  the  expense  of  liberty, 
and  becomes  the  tyrant  over  the  people.  It  may  well  be  supposed* 
that  in  forming  a  government  of  this  sort,  it  will  not  be  favourable 
to  liberty :  the  conqueror  will  take  care  of  his  own  emoluments, 
and  have  little  concern  for  the  interest  of  the  people.  In  either  case, 
Abe  interest  and  ambition  of  despot,  and  not  the  good  of  the  people^ 
vol.  3,  5 


DEBATES. 


&&■ 


[Pendleton, 


have  given  the  tone  to  the  governmnnt.  A  government  thus  formed,} 
must  necessarily  create  a  continual  war  between  the  governors  and. 
governed. 

Writers  consider  the  two  parties  (the  people  and  tyrants)  as  in  a 
state  of  perpetual  warfare,  and  sounded'  the  alarm  to  the  people. 
But  what  is  our  easel  We  are  perfectly  free  from  sedition  and  war: 
we  are  not  yet  in  confusion  :  we  are  left  to  consider  our  real  happi¬ 
ness  and  security  :  we  want  to  secure  these  objects:  we  know  they 
cannot  be  attained  without  government.  Is  there  a  single  man  in 
this  committee  of  a  contrary  opinion1  What  was  it  that  brought  us 
from  a  state  of  nature  to  society,  but  to  secure  happiness!  And  can 
society  be  formed  without  government!  Personify  government: 
apply  to  it  as  a  friend  to  assist  you,  and  it  will  grant  your  request. 
This  is  the  only  government  founded  in  real  compact.  There  is  no 
quarrel  between  government  and  liberty  j  the  former  is  the  shielci 
and  protector  of  the  latter.  The  war  is  between  government  and 
licentiousness,  faction,  turbulence,  and  other  violations  of  the  rules 
of  society,  to  preserve  liberty.  Where  is  the  cause  of  alarm!  W  e, 
the  people,  possessing  all  power,  form  a  government,  such  as  we 
think  will  secure  happiness  :  and  suppose  in  adopting  this  plan,  we 
should  be  mistaken  in  the  end  ;  where  is  the  cause  of  alarm. on  that 
quarter!  In  the  same  plan  we  point  out  an  easy  and  quiet  method 
of  reforming  what  may  be  found  amiss.  No,  but,  say  gentlemen, 
we  have  put  the  introduction  of  that  method  in  the  hands  of  our 
servants,  who  will  interrupt  it  from  motives  of  self-interest.  W  hat 
then!  We  will  resist,  did  my  friend  say!  conveying  an  idea  ot 
force.  Who  shall  dare  to  resist  the  people!  No,  we  will  assemble 
in  convention;  wholly  recall  our  delegated  powers,  or  reform  them 
so  as  to  prevent  such  abuse ;  and  punish  those  servants,  who  have 
perverted  powers  designed  for  opr  happiness,  to  their  own  emolu¬ 
ment.  We  ought  to  be  extremely  cautious  not  to  be  drawn  into  dis¬ 
pute  with  regular  government,  by  faction  and  turbulence,  its  natural 
enemies.  Here  then,  sir,  there  is  no  cause  of  alarm  on  this  side 
but  on  the  other  side,  rejecting  of  government  and  dissolving  of  the 
union,  produce  contusion  and  despotism. 

But  an  objection  is  made  to  the  fbrm ;  the  expression,  We  the 
people,  is  thought  improper.  Permit  me  to  ask  the  gentlemen,  who 
made  this  objection,  who  but  the  people  can  delegate  powers!  Who 
but  the  people  have  a  right  to  form  government!  The  expression  is 
a  common  one,  and  a  favorite  one  with  me  ;  the  yepresentatives  of 
the  people,  by  their  authority,  is  a  mode  wholly  inessential.  If  the 
objection  be,  that  the  union  ought  to  be  not  of  the  people,  but  of  the 
state  governments,  then  I  think  the  choice  of  the  former,  very  hap-, 
py  and  ptoper.  What  have  the  state  governments  to  do  \yi\k 


Pendleton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


67 

Were  they  to  determine,  the  people  would  not,  in  that  case,  be  the 
judges  upon  what  terms  it  was  adopted. 

But  the  power  of  the  convention  is  doubted.  What  is  the  power? 
To  propose  not  to  determine.  This  power  of  proposing  was  very 
broad  ;  it  extended  to  remove  all  defects  in  government :  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  that  convention  were  to  consider  all  the  defects  in  our  gen¬ 
eral  government  were  not  confined  to  any  particular  plan.  Were 
they  deceived?  This  is  the  proper  question  here.  Suppose  the 
paper  on  your  table  dropt  from  one  of  the  planets  ;  the  people  found 
it,  and  sent  us  here  to  consider  whether  it  was  proper  for  their  adop¬ 
tion  ;  must  we  not  obey  them?  Then  the  question,  must  be,  be¬ 
tween  this  government  and  the  confederation.  The  latter  is  no  gov¬ 
ernment  at  all.  It  has  been  said  that  it  has  carried  us  through  a 
dangerous  war  to  a  happy  issue.  Not  that  confederation,  but  com¬ 
mon  danger  and  the  spirit  of  America,  were  bonds  of  our  union  : 
union  and  unanimity,  and  not  that  insignificant  paper,  carried  us 
thro u oh  that  dangerous  war,  “  United,  we  stand — divided,  we 

©  i  ©  p  * 

fall!”  echoed  and  re-echoed  through  America,  from  congress  to  the 
drunken  carpenter;  was  effectual,  and  procured  the  end  of  our 
wishes,  though  now  forgot  by  gentlemen,  if  such  there  he,  who  in¬ 
cline  to  let  go  this  strong  hold,  to  catch  at  feathers  ;  for  all  such 
substituted  projects  may  prove. 

This  spirit  had  nearly  reached  the  end  of  its  power  when  relieved 
by  peace.  It  was  the  spirit  of  America,  and  not  the  confederation,  that 
carried  us  through  the  war  :  thus  I  prove  it.  The  moment  of  peace 
showed  the  imbecility  of  the  federal  government :  congiess  was 
empowered  to  make  war  and  peace,  a  peace  they  made,  giving  us 
the  great  object  independence,  and  yielding  us  a  territory  that  ex-, 
ceeded  my  most  sanguine  expectations.  Unfortunately  a  single 
disagreeable  clause,  not  the  object  of  the  war,  has  retarded  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  treaty  on  our  part.  'Congress  could  only  recom¬ 
mend  its  performance,  not  enforce  it;  our  last  assembly  (to  their 
honor  be  it  said)  put  this  on  its  proper  ground — >on  honorable 
grounds — it  was  as  much  as  they  ought  to  have  done.  This  single 
Instance  shews  the  imbecility  of  the  confederation  ;  the  debts  con¬ 
tracted  by  the  war  were  unpaid  ;  demands  were  made  on  congress ; 
all  that  congress  was  able  to  do,  was  to  make  an  estimate  of  the 
debts,  and  proportion  it  among  the  several  states,  they  sent  on  the 
requisitions  from  time  to  time,  to  the  states  for  their  respective 
quotas.  Tnese  were  either  complied  with  partially,  or  not  at  all ; 
repeated  demands  on  congress  distressed  that  honorable  body  ;  but 
they  were  unable  to  fulfil  those  engagements  which  they  so  earnest¬ 
ly  wished.  What  was  the  idea  of  other  nations  respecting  Ameri¬ 
ca?  What  was  the  idea  entertained  of  us  by  those  nations  to  whorq 


DEBATES. 


68 


[Pendleton. 


we  were  so  much  indebted]  The  inefficacy  of  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  warranted  an  idea  that  we  had  no  government  at  all.  Improve¬ 
ments  were  proposed  and  agreed  to  by  twelve  states,  but  were  in¬ 
terrupted,  because  the  little  state  of  Rhode  Island  refused  to  accede 
to  them;  this  was  a  further  proof  of  the  imbecility  of  that  government ; 
need  I  multiply  instances  to  show  that  it  is  wholly  ineffectual  for 
the  purposes  of  its  institution]  Its  whole  progress,  since  the  peace 
proves  it. 

Shall  we  then,  sir,  continue  under  such  a  government,  or  shall  we 
introduce  that  kind  of  government  which  shall  produce  the  real  hap¬ 
piness  and  security  of  the  people]  When  gentlemen  say,  that  we 
ought  not  to  introduce  this  new  government,  but  strengthen  the 
hands  of  congress,  they  ought  to  be  explicit ;  in  what  manner 
shall  this  be  done]  If  the  union  of  the  states  be  necessary,  gov¬ 
ernment  must  be  equally  so ;  for  without  the  latter,  the  former  can¬ 
not  be  effected.  Government  must  then  have  its  complete  powers, 
or  be  ineffectual  ;  legislate  to  fix  rules,  impose  sanctions,  and  point 
out  the  punishment  of  the  transgressors  of  these  rules — an  executive 
to  watch  over  officers  and  bring  them  to  punishment — a  judiciary  to 
guard  the  innocent,  and  fix  the  guilty,  by  a  fair  trial :  without  an 
execntive,  offenders  would  not  be  brought  to  punishment,  without  a 
judiciary,  any  man  might  be  taken  up,  convicted,  and  punished  with¬ 
out  a  trial.  Hence  the  necessity  of  having  these  three  branches. 
Would  any  gentlemen  in  this  committee,  agree  to  vest  these  three 
powers  in  one  body,  Congress!  No.  Hence  the  necessity  of  a  new  or¬ 
ganization  and  distribution  of  those  powers.  If  there  be  any  feature  in 
this  government,  which  is  not  republican,  it  would  be  exceptionable  : 
from  all  the  public  servants,  responsibility  is  secured,  by  their  being 
representatives,  meditate  or  immediate,  for  short  terms,  and  their 
powers  defined.  It  is,  on  the  whole  complexion  of  it,  a  government 
of  laws,  not  of  men. 

But  it  is  represented  to  be  a  consolidated  government,  annihilating 
that  of  the  states ;  a  consolidated  government,  which  so  extensive  a 
territory  as  the  United  States  cannot  admit  of,  without  terminating 
in  despotism:  if  this  be  such  a  government,  I  will  confess  with  my 
worthy  friend,  that  it  is  inadmissible,  over  such  a  territory  as  this 
country.  Let  us  consider  whether  it  be  such  a  government  or  not : 
I  should  understand  a  consolidated  government  to  be  that  which 
should  have  the  sole  and  exclusive  power,  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial,  without  any  limitation:  is  this  such  a  government]  Or 
can  it  be  changed  to  such  a  one  !  It  only  extends  to  the  genera] 
purposes  of  the  union.  It  does  not  intermeddle  with  the  local  par¬ 
ticular  affairs  ot  the  states.  Can  congress  legislate  for  the  state  of 
Virginia!  Can  they  make  a  law  altering  the  form  of  transferring 


VIRGINIA. 


69 


Pendleton.] 

property,  or  the  rale  of  descents  in  Virginia! — In  one  word,  can 
they  make  a  single  law  for  the  individual  exclusive  purpose  of  any 
one  state!  It  is  the  interest  of  the  federal  to  preserve  the  state  go¬ 
vernments;  upon  the  latter,  the  existence  of  the  former  depends  :  the 
senate  derives  its  existence  immediately  from  the  state  legislatures  ; 
and  the  representatives  and  president  are  elected  under  their  direc¬ 
tion  and  control ;  they  also  preserve  order  among  the  citizens  of 
their  respective  states,  and  without  order  and  peace,  no  society  can 
possibly  exist.  Unless,  therefore,  there  be  state  legislatures  to  con¬ 
tinue  the  existence  of  congress,  and  preserve  ordej  and  peace  among 
the  inhabitants,  this  general  government,  which  gentlemen  suppose 
will  annihilate  the  state  governments,  must  itself  be  destroyed  ; 
when,  therefore,  the  federal  government  is  in  so  many  respects,  so 
absolutely  dependent  on  the  state  governments,  I  wonder  how  any 
gentleman,  reflecting  on  the  subject,  could  have  conceived  an  idea 
of  a  possibility  of  the  former  destroying  the  latter.  But  the  power 
of  laying  direct  taxes  is  objected  to.  Government  must  be  sup¬ 
ported  ;  this  cannot  be  done  without  a  revenue  :  if  a  sufficient  re¬ 
venue  be  not  otherwise  raised,  recurrence  must  be  had  to  direct 
taxation  ;  gentlemen  admit  this,  but  insist  on  the  propriety  of  first 
applying  to  the  state  legislatures. 

Let  us  consider  the  consequence  that  would  result  from  this  :  in 
the  first  place,  time  would  be  lost  by  it :  congress  would  make  re¬ 
quisitions  in  December;  our  legislature  do  not  meet  till  October; 
here  would  be  a  considerable  loss  of  time,  admitting  the  requisitions 
to  be  fully  complied  with  ;  but  suppose  the  requisitions  to  be  refused 
would  it  not  be  dangerous  to  send  a  collector,  to  collect  the  con¬ 
gressional  taxes,  after  the  state  legislature  had  absolutely  refused 
comply  with  the  demands  of  congress!  Would  not  resistance  to 
collectors  be  the  probable  consequence!  Would  not  this  resistance 
terminate  in  confusion,  and  a  dissolution  of  the  union!  The  con¬ 
current  power  of  two  different  bodies  laying  direct  taxes,  is  objec¬ 
ted  to :  these  taxes  are  for  two  different  purposes,  and  cannot  inter¬ 
fere  with  one  another ;  I  can  see  no  danger  resulting  from  this ;  and 
we  must  suppose,  that  a  very  small  sum  more  than  the  impost  would 
be  sufficient;  but  the  representation  is  supposed  too  small.  I  con¬ 
fess,  I  think  with  the  gentleman  who  opened  the  debate,  (Mr.  Nich¬ 
olas  )on  this  subject :  and  I  think  he  gave  a  very  satisfactory  answer 
to  this  objection,  when  he  observed,  that  though  the  number  might 
be  insufficient  to  convey  information  of  necessary  local  interests  to  a 
state  legislature,  yet  it  was  sufficient  for  the  federal  legislature,  who 
ate  to  act  only  on  general  subjects,  in  which  this  state  is  concerned 
in  common  with  other  states*.  The  apportionment  of  representation 
and  taxation  by  the  same  scale  is  just;  it  removes  the  objection,  that 


70 


DEBATES* 


[Leej 

while  Virginia  paid  one-sixth  part  of  the  expenses  of  the  union,  she 
had  no  more  weight  in  public  counsels  than  Delaware,  which  paid 
but  a  very  small  portion  ;  by  this  just  apportionment  she  is  put  on  a 
footing  with  the  small  states,  in  point  of  representation  and  influence 
in  councils*  I  cannot  imagine  a  more  judicious  principle  than  is 
here  fixed  by  the  constitution — the  number  shall  not  exceed  one  for 
every  30,000.  Bat  it  is  objected  that  the  number  may  be  less.  If 
Virginia  sends  in  that  proportion,  I  ask,  where  is  the  power  in  con¬ 
gress  to  reject  them!  States  might  incline  to  send  too  many,  they 
are  therefore  restrained  :  but  can  it  be  doubted,  that  they  will  send 
the  number  they  are  entitled  to!  We  may  be  therefore  sure,  from 
this  principle  unequivocally  fixed  in  the  constitution,  that  the  num¬ 
ber  of  our  representatives  shall  be  in  proportion  to  the  increase  or 
decrease  of  our  population.  I  can  truly  say,  that  I  am  of  no  party, 
nor  actuated  by  any  influence;  but  the  true  interest  and  real  happi¬ 
ness  of  those  whom  I  represent ;  and  my  age  and  situation,  1  trust, 
will  sufficiently  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this  assertion.  I  cannot 
conclude,  without  adding,  that  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  this  part 
of  the  system. 

Mr.  LEE,  (of  Westmoreland.) — Mr  Chairman.  I  feel  every  pow¬ 
er  of  my  mind  moved  by  the  language  of  the  honorable  gentleman 
yesterday.  The  eclat  and  brilliancy  which  have  distinguished  that 
gentleman,  the  honors  with  which  he  has  been  dignified,  and  the 
brilliant  talents  which  he  has  so  often  displayed,  have  attracted  my 
respect  and  attention. — On  so  important  an  occasion,  and  before  so 
respectable  a  body-,  I  expected  a  new  display  of  his  powers  of  ora¬ 
tory  ;  but  instead  of  proceeding  to  investigate  the  merits  of  the  new 
plan  of  government,  the  worthy  character  informed  us  of  horrors 
which  he  felt,  of  apprehensions  to  his  mind,  which  made  him  trem¬ 
blingly  fearful  of  the  fate  of  the  commonwealth.  Mr.  Chairman 
was  it  proper  to  appeal  to  the  fears  of  this  house!  The  question  be¬ 
fore  us  belongs  to  the  judgment  of  this  house — I  trust  he  is  come  to 
judge,  and  not  to  alarm,  I  trust  that  he,  and  every  other  gentleman 
in  this  house,  come  with  a  firm  resolution  coolly  and  calmly  to  ex¬ 
amine,  and  fairly  and  impartially  to  determine.  He  was  pleased  to 
pass  an  eulogium  on  that  character  who  is  the  pride  of  peace  and 
support  of  war  ;  and- declared  that  even  from  him  he  would  require 
the  reason  of  proposing  such  a  system.  1  cannot  see  the  propriety 
'of  mentioning  that  illustrious  character  on  this  occasion ;  we  must 
be  all  fully  impressed  with  a  conviction  of  his  extreme  rectitude  of 
conduet.  But,  Sir,  this  system  is  to  be  examined  by  its  own  merit. 
He  then  adverted  to  the  style  of  government,  and  asked  what  au¬ 
thority  they  had  to  use  the  expression  “  We  the  people,”  and  not 
We  the  states!  This  expression  was  introduced  into  that  paper  with 


VIRGINIA, 


great  propriety.  This  system  is  submitted  to  the  people  for  their 
consideration,  because  on  them  it  is  to  operate,  if  adopted.  It  is 
now  binding  on  the  people  until  it  becomes  their  act.  It  is  now 
submitted  to  the  people  of  Virginia.  If  we  do  not  adopt  it,  it  will 
be  always  null  and  void  as  to  us.  Suppose  it  was  found  proper  for 
our  adoption,  and  becoming  the  government  of  the  people  of  Virginia, 
by  what  style  should  ft  be  done?  Ought  we  not  to  make  use  of  the 
name'  of  the  people?  No  other  style  would  be  proper.  He  then 
spoke  of  the  characters  of  the  gentlemen  who  framed  it ;  this  was  in¬ 
applicable,  strange,  and  unexpected  :  it  Was  a  mofe/  proper  inquiry 
whether  such  evils  existed  as  Tendered  necessary  a  change  of  go^ 
ernment.  ,  t 

This  necessity  is  evidenced  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  almost 
all  America.  The  legislative  acts  of  different  states  avow  it'.  It  is 
acknowledged  by  the  acts  of  this  state ;  under  such  an  act  we  are 
here  now  assembled.  If  reference  to  the  acts  of  the  assemblies 
will  not  sufficiently  convince  him  of  this  necessity,  let  him  go  to  our 
sea  ports — let  him  see  our  commerce  languishing — not  an  American 
bottom  to  be  seen— let  him  ask  the  price  of  land,  and  of  produce  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  to  what  cause  Shall  we  ascribe  the 
very  low  prices  of  these?  To  what  "cause  are  we  to  attribute  the  de¬ 
crease  of  population  and  industry?  And  the  impossibility  of  em¬ 
ploying  our  tradesmen  and  mechanics?  To  what  cause  will  the  gen¬ 
tleman  impute  these  and  a  thousand  other  misfortunes  ohr  peoplela- 
bor  under?  These,  sir,  are  owing  to  the  imbecility  of  the  confede¬ 
ration  ;  to  that  defective  system  which  never  can  make  us  happy  at 
home  nor  respectable  abroad.  The  gentleman  sat  down  as  he  began, 
leaving  us  to  ruminate  on  the  horrors  which  he  opened  \vith.  Al¬ 
though  I  could  trust  to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  who  spoke 
yesterday  in  favor  of  the  plan,  permit  me  to  make  ohe  observation  on 
the  weight  of  our  representatives  in  the  government.  If  the  house 
of  commons  in  England,  possessing  less  poWer,  are  how  able  to 
withstand  the  power  of  the  crown;  if  that  house  of*  Commons  which 
has  been  undeTmined  by  corruption  in  every  age,  and  contaminated 
by  bribery  eV'eh  in  this  enlightened  age,  with  far  less  powers  than 
etur  representatives  possess,  is  still  able  to  contend  with  the  execu¬ 
tive  of  that  country,  What  danger  hdve  we  to  fear  that  our  represen¬ 
tatives  cannot  successfully  oppose  the  encroachments  of  the  other 
branches  of  the  government?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  in  the  year 
1782,  the  East  India  bill  was  brought  into  the  house  of  commons  : 
although  the  members  of  that  house  are  only  elected  in  part  by 
the  landed  interest,  yet  in  spite  of  rriinisterial  influence,  that  bill 
was  carried  in  that  house  by  a  majority  of  one  hundred  and  thirty, 
and  the  king  was  obliged  to  dissolve  the  parliament  to  prevent  it£ 


72L 


DEBATES. 


[Henryv 


effect..  If  then  the  house  of  commons  was  so  powerful,  no  danger 
can  be  apprehended  that  o,ur  house  of  representatives  is  not  amply 
able  to  protect  our  liberties.  I  trust  that  this  representation  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  secure  our  happiness,  and  that  we  may  fairly  congratulate 
ourselves  on  the  superiority  of  our  government  to  that  I  just  re¬ 
ferred  to. 

Mr  HENRY.  Mr  Chairman,. I  am,  much  obliged  to  the  very 
worthy  gentleman  for  his  encomium.  I  wish  I  was  possessed  with 
talents  or  possessed  of  any  thing  that  might  enable  me  to  eluci¬ 
date  this  great  subject.  I  am  not  free  from  suspicion  :  I  am  apt  to 
entertain  doubts:  I  rose  yesterday  to  ask  a  question,  which  arose 
in  my  own  mind.  When  I  asked  that  question,  I  thought  the 
meaning  of  my  interrogation  was- obvious  :  the  fate  of  this  question 
and  of  America  may  depend  on  this.  Have  they  said,  We  the 
States'?  Have  they  made  a  proposal  of  a  compact  between  states? 
If  they  had,  this  would  be  a  confederation:  It  is  otherwise  most 
clearly  a  consolidated  government.  The  question  turns,  sir,  on 
that  poor  little  thing — the  expression,  We,  the  people,  instead  of 
the  states  of  America.  I  need  not  take  much  pains  to  showr,  that 
the  principles  of  this  system  are  extremely  pernicious,  impolitic,  and 
dangerous.  Is  this  a  monarchy  like  England— a  compact  between 
prince  and  people,  with  checks  on  the  former  to  secure  the  liberty 
of  the  latter'?  Is  this  a  confederacy  like  Holland — an  association  of' 
a  number  of  independent  States,  each  of  which  retains  its  individual 
sovereignty'?  It  is  not  a  democracy,,  wherein  the  people  retain  all 
their  rights  securely. .  Had  these  principles  been  adhered  to,  we 
should  not  have  been  brought  to  this  alarming  transition,  from  a 
confederacy  to  a  consolidated  government.  We  have  no  detail  of 
these  great  considerations,  which,  in  my  opinion,  ought  to  have 
abounded  before  we  should  recur  to  a  government  of  this  kind* 
Here  is  a  resolution  as  radical  as  that  which  separated  us  from 
Great  Britain.  It  is  radical  in  this  transition,  our  rights  and  priv¬ 
ileges  are  endangered,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  will  be  relin¬ 
quished  :  and  cannot  we  plainly  see,  that  this  is  actually  the  case? 
The  rights  of  conscience,  trial  by  jury,  liberty  of  the  press,  all  your 
communities  and  franchises,  all  pretentions  to  human  rights  and 
privileges,  are  rendered  insecure,  if  not  lost,  by  this  change  so  loud¬ 
ly  talked  of  by  some,  and  inconsiderately  by  others.  Is  this  tame 
relinquishment  of  rights  worthy  of  freemen?  Is  it  worthy  of  that 
manly  fortitude  that  ought  to  characterize  republicans?  It  is  said 
eight  states  have  adopted  this  plan.  I  declare  that  if  twelve  States 
and  an  half  had  adopted  it,  I  wTould  with  manly  firmness,  and  in 
spite  of  an  erring  world,  reject  it.  You  are  not  to  inquire  how  your 
trade  may  be  increased ,  nor  how  you  are  to  become  a  great  ami 


Henrv.] 


VIRGINIA. 


73 


powerful  people,  but  how  your  liberties  can  be  secured ;  for  liberty 
ought  to  be  the  direct  end  of  your  government. 

Having  premised  these  things,  I  shall,  with  the  aid  of  my 
judgment  and  information,  which  I  confess,  are  not  extensive,  go 
into  the  discussion  of  this  system  more  minutely.  Is  it  necessary 
for  your  liberty,  that  you  should  abandon  those  great  rights  by  the 
adoption  of  this  system!  Is  the  relinquishment  of  the  trial  by  jury 
and  the  liberty  of  the  press,  necessary  for  your  liberty!  Will  the 
abandonment  of  your  most  sacred  rights  tend  to  the  security  of  your 
liberty!  Liberty,  the  greatset  of  all  earthly  blessings — give  us  that 
precious  jewel,  and  you  may  take  every  thing  e\se\  But  I  am 
fearful  I  have  lived  long  enough  to  become  an  old  fashioned  fellow. 
Perhaps  an  invincible  attachment  to  the  dearest  rights-  of  man, 
may,  in  these  refined  enlightened  days,  be  deemed  old  fashioned  ; 
if  so,  I  am  contented  to  be  so  :  I  say  the  time  has  been,  when  every 
pulse  of  my  heart  beat  for  American  liberty,  and  which,  I  believe, 
had  a  counterpart  in  the  breast  of  every  true  American  ;  but  suspicions 
have  gone  forth — suspicions  of  my  integrity — publicly  reported  that 
my  professions  are  not  real — twenty  three  years  ago  was  I  supposed 
a  traitor  to  my  country:  I  was  then  said  to  be  the  bane  of  sedition, be¬ 
cause  I  supported  the  rights  of  my  country  ;  I  may  be  thought  sus¬ 
picious  when  I  say  our  privileges  and  rights  are  in  danger.  But 
sir,  a  number  of  the  people  of  this  country  are  weak  enough  to 
think  these  things  are  too  true.  I  am  happy  to  find  that  the  gentle¬ 
man  on  the  other  side,  declares  they  are  groundless.  But,  sir,  sus¬ 
picion  is  a  virtue,  as  long  as  its  object  is  the  preservation  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  good,  and  as  long  as  it  stays  within  proper  bounds  :  should  it  fall 
on  me,  I  am  contented  :  conscious  rectitude  is  a  powerful  cousola- 
tion.  1  trust  there  are  many  who  think  my  professions  for  the  pub¬ 
lic  good  to  he  real.  Let  your  suspicion  look  to  both  sides  :  there 
are  many  on  the  other  side,  who  possibly  may  have  been  persuaded 
to  the  necessity  of  these  measures,  which  I  conceive  to  he  danger¬ 
ous  to  your  liberty.  Guard  with  jealous  attention  the  public  liber¬ 
ty.  Suspect  every  one  who  approaches  that  jewTel.  Unfortunately 
nothing  will  preserve  it,  but  downright  force.  Whenever  you  give 
up  that  force,  you  are  inevitably  ruined.  I  am  answered  by  gentle¬ 
men,  that  though  I  might  speak  of  terrors,  yet  the  fact  was,  that  we 
were  surrounded  by  none  of  the  dangers  I  apprehended.  I  conceive 
this  new  government  to  be  one  of  those  dangers  :  it  has  produced 
those  horrors,  which  distress  many  of  our  best  citizens.  We  are 
come  hither  to  preserve  the  poor  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  if  it  can 
be  possibly  done  ;  something  must  be  done  to  preserve  your  liberty 
and  mine.  The  confederation,  this  same  despised  government,, 
merits,  in  my  opinion,  the  highest  encomium  :  it  carried  ust  hrough 


DEBATES. 


[Henrv. 


a  long  and  dangerous  war :  it  rendered  us  victorious  in  that  bloody 
conflict  with  a  powerful  nation,  it  has  secured  us  a  territory  greater 
than  any  European  monarch  possesses:  and  shall  a  government 
which  has  been  thus  strong  and  vigorous,  be  accused  of  imbecility 
and  abandoned  for  want  of  energy?  Consider  what  you  are  about 
to  do  before  you  part  with  the  government.  Take  longer  time  in 
reckoning  things ;  revolutions  like  this  have  happened  in  almost 
every  country  in  Europe ;  similar  examples  are  to  be  found  in  an¬ 
cient  Greece  and  ancient  Rome  :  instances  of  the  people  losing  their 
liberty  by  their  own  carelessness  and  the  ambition  of  a  few.  We 
are  cautioned  by  the  honorable  gentleman  who  presides  against  fac¬ 
tion  and  turbulence  :  I  acknowledge  that  licenciousness  is  danger¬ 
ous,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  provided  against:  I  acknowledge  also 
the  new  form  of  government  may  effectually  prevent  it :  yet,  there 
is  another  thing  it  will,  as  effectually  do  :  it  will  oppress  and  ruin 
the  people. 

There  are  sufficient  guards  placed  against  sedition  and  licentious¬ 
ness  :  for  when  power  is  given  to  this  government  to  suppress  these* 
or,  for  any  other  purpose,  the  language  it  assumes  is  clear,  express, 
and  unequivocal  ;  but  when  this  constitution  speaks  of  privileges* 
there  is  an  ambiguity,  sir,  a  fatal  ambiguity — an  ambiguity  which  is 
very  astonishing.  In  the  clause  under  consideration,  there  is  the 
strangest  language  that  I  can  Conceive.  I  mean,  when  it  says,  that 
there  shall  not  be  more  representatives,  than  one  for  every  30,000. 
Now,  sir,  how  easy  is  it  to  evade  this  privilege?  “The  number  shall 
not  exceed  one  for  every  SO, 000.”  This  may  be  satisfied  by  one 
representative  from  each  state.  Let  our  numbers  be  ever  so  great, 
this  immense  continent,  may,  by  this  artful  expression,  be  reduced  to 
have  but  thirteen  representatives  :  I  confess  this  construction  is  not 
natural  ;  but  the  ambiguity  of  the  expression  lays  a  good  ground  for  a 
quarrel.  Why  was  it  not  clearly  and  unequivocally  expressed,  that 
they  should  be  entitled  to  have  one  for  every  30,000!  This  would 
have  obviated  all  disputes  ;and  was  this  difficult  to  be  done?  What 
is  the  inference?  When  population  increases,  and  a  state  shall 
send  representatives  in  this  proportion,  congreses  may  remand  them 
because  the  right  of  having  one  for  every  30,000  is  not  clearly  ex¬ 
pressed-:  this  possibility  of  reducing  the  number  to  one  for  each 
state  approximates  to  probability  by  that  other  expression  ;  But  each 
state  shall  at  least  have  one  representative/’  Now  is  it  not  clear 
that  from  the  first  expression  the  number  might  be  reduced  so  much 
that  some  states  should  have  no  representatives  at  all,  were  it  not  for 
the  insertion  of  this  last  expression?  And  as  this  is  the  only  re¬ 
striction  upon  them,  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  they  may  restrain 
the  number  to  one  from  each  state  Perhaps  the  same  horrors  may 


VIRGINIA. 


Henry.] 


V5 


hang  over  my  mind  again.  I  shall  be  told  I  am  continually  afraid : 
but,  sir.  I  have  strong  cause  of  apprehension.  In  some  parts  of  the* 
plan  before  you,  the  great  rights  of  freemen  are  endangered,  in  other 
parts  absolutely  taken  away.j|  How  does  your  trial  by  jury  stand? 
In  civil  cases  gone—-not  sufficiently  secured  in  criminal — this  best 
privilege  is  gone  :  but  we  are  told  that  we  need  not  fear,  because 
those  in  power  being  our  representatives,  will  not  abuse  the  powers 
we  put  in  their  hands  :  I  am  not  Well  versed  in  history,  but  I  will 
submit  to  your  recollection,  whether  liberty  has  been  destroyed  most 
often  by  the  licentiousness  of  the  people,  or  by  the  tyranny  of  rulers? 
^  imagine,  sir,  you  will  find  the  balance  on  the  side  of  tyranny.  Hap¬ 
py  will  you  be  if  you  miss  the  fate  of  those  nations,  who  omitting  to 
resist  their  oppressors,  or  negligently  suffering  their  liberty  to  be 
wrested  from  them,  have  groaned  under  intolerable  despotism!  Most 
of  the  human  race  are  now  in  this  deplorable  condition.  And  those 
nations  who  have  gone  in  search  of  grandeur, power,  and  splendor,  have 
also  fallen  a  sacrifice,  and  been  the  victims  of  their  own  folly.  While 
they  acquired  those  visionary  blessings,  they  lost  their  freedom.  My 
great  objection  to  this  government  is  that  it  does  not  leave  us  the 
means  of  defending  our  rights;  or  of  waging  war  against  tyrants.  It 
is  urged  by  some  gentlemen,  that  this  new  plan  will  bring  us  an  ac¬ 
quisition  of  strength,  an  army,  and  the  militia  of  the  states.  This 
is  an  idea  extremely  ridiculous  :  gentlemen  cannot  be  earnest  rI'his 
acquisition  will  trample  on  our  fallen  liberty.  Let  my  beloved  Ameri¬ 
cans  guard  against  that  fatal  lethargy  that  has  pervaded  the  universe. 
Have  we  the  means  of  resisting  disciplined  armies,  when  our  only  de¬ 
fence,  the  militia,  is  put  into  the  hands  of  congress?  The  honorable 
gentleman  said,  that  great  danger  would  ensue  if  the  convention  rose 
'without  adopting  this  system.  I  ask,  where  is  that  danger?  1  see 
none.  Other  gentlemen  have  told  us  within  these  walls,  that  the 
union  is  gone;  or  that  the  union  will  be  gone.  Is  not  this  trifling 
with  the  judgment  of  their  fellow-citizens?  Till  they  tell  us  the 
grounds  of  their  fears,  I  will  consider  them  as  imaginary.  I  rose  to 
to  make  enquiry  where  those  dangers  were  ;  they  could  make  no  an¬ 
swer  :  I  believe  I  never  shall  have  that  answer.  Is  there  a  disposi¬ 
tion  in  the  people  of  this  country  to  revolt  against  the  dominion  of 
laws?  Has  there  been  a  single  tumult  in  Virginia?  Have  not  the 
people  of  Virginia,  when  laboring  under  the  severest  pressure  of  ac¬ 
cumulated  distresses,  manifested  the  most  cordial  acquiescence  in 
the  execution  of  the  laws?  What  could  be  more  awful  than  their 
unanimous  acquiescence  under  general  distresses?  Is  there  any  revo¬ 
lution  in  Virginia?  Whither  is  the  spirit  of  America  gone?  Whith- 
is  thft  genius  of  America  fled?  It  was  but  yesterday,  when  our  ene¬ 
mies  marched  in  triumph  through  our  country.  Yet  the  people  of 


DEBATES. 


7S 


£Henryv 


this  country  could  not  be  appalled  by  their  pompous  armaments:  they 
"stopped  their  career,  and  victoriously  captured  them  :  where  is  the' 
peril  now  compared  to  that!  Some  minds  are  agitated  by  foreign 
alarms.  Happily  for  us,  there  is  no  j^al  danger  from  Europe ;  that 
country  is,  engaged  in  more  arduous  business  ;  from  that  quarter 
there  is  no  cause  of  fear :  you  may  sleep  in  safety  forever  for  them. 

Where  is  the  danger!  If,  sir,  there  was  any,  I  would  recur  to  the 
American  spirit  to  defend  us  ;  that  spirit  which  has  enabled  us  to 
surmount  the  greatest  difficulties  :  to  that  illustrious  spirit  I  address 
my  most  fervent  prayer  to  prevent  our  adopting  a  system  destructive 
to  liberty.  Let  not  gentlemen  be  told,  that  it  is  not  safe  to  reject 
this  government.  Wherefore  is  it  not  safe!  We  are  told  there  are 
dangers,  but  those  dangers  are  ideal ;  they  cannot  be  demonstrated. 
To  encourage  us  to  adopt  it,  they  tell  us,  that  there  is  a  plain  easy 
way  of  getting  amendments.  When  I  come  to  contemplate  this  part, 
I  suppose  that  I  am  mad,  or  that  my  countrymen  are  so.  The  way 
to  amendment,  is  in  my  conception,  shut.  Let  us  consider  this 
plain  easy  way.  “  The  congress,  whenever  two  thirds  of  both 
houses  shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  amendments  to  this 
constitution,  or,  on  the  application  of  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds 
of  the  several  states,  shall  call  a  convention  for  proposing  amend¬ 
ments,  which  in  either  case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and  purpo¬ 
ses,  as  part  of  this  constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of 
three-fourths  of  the  several  states,  or  by  the  conventions  in  three- 
fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may  be 
proposed  by  the  congress.  Provided,  that  no  amendment  which 
may  be  made  prior  to  the  year  1808,  shall  in  any  manner  affeet  the 
first  and  fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  ;  and 
that  no  state  without  its  consent,  shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suf¬ 
frage  in  the  senate.” 

Hence  it  appears  that  three-fourths  of  the  states  must  ultimately 
agree  to  any  amendments  that  may  be  necessary.  Let  us  consider 
the  consequence  of  this.  However  uncharitable  it  may  appear,  yet 
I  must  tell  my  opinion,  that  the  most  unworthy  characters  may  get 
into  power  and  prevent  the  introduction  of  amendments.  Let  us 
suppose,  for  the  case  is  supposeable,  possible,  and  probable,  that 
you  happen  to  deal  those  powers  to  unworthy  hands,  will  they  re¬ 
linquish  powers  already  in  their  possession,  or  agree  to  amend¬ 
ments!  Two-thirds  of  the  congress,  or  of  the  state  legislatures,  are 
necessary  even  to  propose  amendments.  If  one-third  of  these  be 
unworthy  men,  they  may  prevent  the  application  for  amendments ; 
but  what  is  destructive  and  mischievous,  is,  that  three  fourths  of 
the  state  legislatures,  or  of  the  state  conventions,  must  concur  in  the 
amendments  when  proposed  :  in  such  numerous  bodies,  there  must 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


77 


necessarily  be  some  designing  bad  men.  To  suppose  that  so  large 
a  number  as  three-fourths  of  the  states  will  concur,  is  to  suppose 
that  they  will  possess  genius,  intelligence  and  integrity,  approaching 
to  miraculous.  It  would  indeed  be  miraculous  that  they  should 
concur  in  the  same  amendnfents,  or  even  in  such  as  would  bear 
some  likeness  to  one  another.  For  four  of  the  smallest  states,  that 
“do  not  collectively  contain  one  tenth  part  of  the  population  of  the 
United  States,  may  obstruct  the  most  salutary  and  necessary 
amendments.  Nay,  in  these  four  states,  six-tenths  of  the  people 
may  reject  these  amendments^  and  suppose,  that  amendments 
shall  be  opposed  to  amendments,  which  is  highly  probable,  is  it 
possible,  that  three  fourths  can  ever  agree  to  the  same  amendments? 
A  bare  majority  in  these  four  small  states  may  hinder  the  adoption 
amendments.  Nay,  in  these  four  states,  six  tenths  of  the  people 
may  reject  these  amendments ;  and  suppose,  that  amendments  shall 
be  opposed  to  amendments,  which  is  highly  probable,  is  it  possible 
that  three  fourths  can  ever  agree  to  the  same  amendments?  A  bare 
majority  in  these  four  small  states,  may  hinder  the  adoption  of 
amendments  ;  so  that  we  may  fairly  and  justly  conclude,  that  one 
twentieth  part  of  the  American  people,  may  prevent  the  removal  of 
the  most  grievous  inconveniences  and  oppression,  by  refusing  to 
accede  to  amendments.  A  trifling  minority  may  reject  the  most 
salutary  amendments.  Is  this  an  easy  mode  of  securing  the  pub¬ 
lic  liberty?  It  is,  sir,  a  most  fearful  situation,  when  the  most  con¬ 
temptible  minority  can  prevent  the  alteration  of  the  most  oppressive 
government ;  for  it  may  in  many  respeets  prove  to  be  such.  Is  this 
the  spirit  of  republicanism? 

What,  sir,  is  the  genius  of  democracy?  Let  me  read  that  clause 
of  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia  whtch  relates  to  this  :  3d  cl.  That 
government  is  or  ought  to  be  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  pro¬ 
tection,  and  security  of  the  people,  nation,  or  community;  of  all  the 
various  modes  and  forms  of  government,  that  is  best,  which  is  ca¬ 
pable  of  producing  the  greatest  degree  of  happiness  and  safety,  and 
is  most  effectually  secured  against  the  danger  of  maladministration, 
and  that  whenever  any  government  shall  be  found  inadequate,  or 
contrary  to  those  purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath  an 
indubitable  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform,  alter  or 
abolish  it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  conducive  to  the 
public  weal. 

This  sir,  is  the  language  of  democracy,  that  a  majority  of  the 
community  have  a  right  to  alter  government  when  found  to  be  op¬ 
pressive  :  but  how  different  is  the  genius  of  your  new  constitution 
from  this  ?  How  different  from  the  sentiments  of  freemen,  that  a 
contemptible  minority  can  prevent  the  good  of  the  majority  ?  If  then 


DEBATES. 


T8- 


[Henry, 


gentlemen  standing  on  this  ground,  are  come  to  that  point,  thet  they 
are  willing  to  bind  themselves  and  their  posterity  to  be  oppressed* 
lam  amazed  and  inexpressibly  astonished.  If  this  be  the  opinion 
of  the  majority,  I  must  submit ;  but  to  me,  sir,  it  appears  perilous 
and  destructive  :  I  cannot  helpthinkihg  so  :  perhaps  it  may  be  the 
result  of  my  age,  these  may  be  feelings  natural  to  a  man  ol  my  years,, 
when  the  American  spirit  has  left  him,  and  his  mental  powers,  like 
the  members  of  the  body  are  decayed.  If,  sir,  amendments  are  left 
to  the  twentieth,  or  tenth  part  of  the  people  of  America,  your  liberty 
is  gone  forever.  We  have  heard  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  brib¬ 
ery  practised  in  the  house  of  commons  in  England  :  and  that  many 
of  the  members  raised  themselves  to  preferments  by  selling  the 
rights  of  the  whole  of  the  people.  But,  sir*  the  tenth  part  of  that 
body  cannot  continue  oppressions  on  the  rest  of  the  people.  Eng-- 
lish  liberty  is  in  this  case,  on  a  firmer  foundation  than  American 
liberty.  It  will  be  easily  contrived  to  procure  the  oppositions! 
one  tenth  of  the  people,  to  any  alteration,  however  judicious.  The 
honorable  gentleman  who  presides,  told  us,  that  to  prevent  abuses 
in  our  government,  we  will  assemble  in  convention,  recal  our  dele¬ 
gated  powers,  and  punish  our  servants,  for  abusing  the  trust  reposed 
in  them.  Oh,  sir,  we  should  have  fine  times,  indeed,  if  to  punish 
tyrants,  it  were  only  suffieicent-to  assemble  the  people  !  Your  arms 
wherewith  you  could  defend  yourselves  are  gone  ;  and  you  have  no 
longer  an  aristocratical,  no  longer  a  democratical  spirit.  Did  you 
ever  read  of  any  revolution  in  a  nation,  brought,- about  by  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  thosein  power, inflicted  by  those  whohadpo  power  at  all'?  Y  ou 
read  of  a  riot  act  in  a  country  which  is  called  one  of  the  freest  in 
the  world,  where  a  few  neighbors  cannot  assemble  without  the  risk 
of  being  shot  by  a  hired  soldiery,  the  engines  of  despotism,.  We 
may  see  such  an  act  in  America. 

A  standing  army  we  shall  have  also,  to  execute  the  execrable 
commands  of  tyranny,  and  how  are  you  to  punish  them?  Will  you 
order  them  to  be  punished?  Who  shall  obey  these  orders?  Will 
your  mace-bearer,  be  a  match  for  a  disciplined  regiment  ?  In  what 
situation  are  we  to  be  ?  The  clause  before  you  gives  a  power  of 
direct  taxation,  unbounded  and  unlimited  .  exclusive  power  of  legis¬ 
lation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  for  ten  miles  square :  and  over  all, 
places  purchased  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock-, 
yards,  &c.  What  resistance  could  be  made  ?  The  attempt  would’ 
be  madness?  You  will  find  all  the  strength  of  this'  country  in.  the 
hands  of  your  enemies  :  their  garrisons  will  naturally  be  the 
strongest  places  in  the  country.  Your  militia  is  given  up  to  con¬ 
gress  also  in  another  part  of  this  plan  :  they  will  therefore  act  as> 
they  think  proper :  all  power  will  be  in  their  own  possession,  yog 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


cannot  force  them  to  receive  their  punishment;  of  what  service 
would  militia  be  to  you,  when  most  probably  you  will  not  have  a 
single  musket  in  the  state? — For  as  arms  are  to  be  provided  by 
congress,  they  may  or  may  not  furnish  them.- 

Let  me  here  call  your  attention  to,  that  part  which  gives  the 
congress  power  “  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplin¬ 
ing  the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be 
employed  in  the  service  of  the  United^  States,  reserving  to  the  states 
respectively,  the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of 
training  the  militia,  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  con¬ 
gress.”  By  this,  sir,  you  see  that  their  control  over  our  last  and 
best  defence,  is  unlimited.  If  they  neglect  or  refuse  to  discipline 
or  arm  our  militia,  they  will  be  useless :  the  states  can  do  neither — 
this  power  being  exclusively  given  to  congress  :  the  power.of  ap¬ 
pointing  officers  over  men  not  disciplined  or  armed,  is  ridiculous, 
so  that  this  pretended  little  remains  of  power  left  to  the  states,  may 
at  the  pleasure  of  congress,  be  rendered  nugatory,  Our  situation 
will  be  deplorable  indeed :  nor  can  w;e  ever  expect  to  get  this  govern¬ 
ment  amended,  since  I  have  already  shown,  that  a  very  small  mi¬ 
nority  may  prevent  it  and  that  small  minority  interested  in  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  oppression.  Will  the  oppressor  let  go  the  oppress¬ 
ed?  Was  there  ever  an  instance?  Can  the  annals  of  mankind  ex-, 
hibit  one  single  example,  where  rulers  overcharged  with  power,  wil-. 
lingly  let  go  the  oppressed,  though  solicited  and  requested  most 
earnestly?  The  application  for  amendments  will  therefore  be  fruit¬ 
less.  Sometimes  the  oppressed  have  got  loose  by  one  of  those  bloody 
struggles  that  desolate  a  country.  But  a  willing  relinquishment  of 
power  is  one  of  those  things  which  human  nature  never  was,  nor 
ever  will  be,  capable  of. 

The  honorable  gentleman’s  observations  respecting  the  people’s 
right  of  being  the  agents  in  the  formation  of  this  government,  are 
not  accurate  in  my  humble  conception.  The  distinction  between  a 
national  government  and  a  confederacy  is  not  sufficiently  discerned. 
Had  the  delegates,  who  were  sent  to  Philadelphia,  a  power  to  pro¬ 
pose  a  consolidated  government  instead  of  a  confederacy?  Were  they 
not  deputed  by  states,  and  not  by  the  people?  The  assent  of  the 
people  in  their  collective  capacity  is  not  necessary  to  the  formation 
of  a  federal  government.  The  people  have  no  right  to  enter  into 
leagues,  alliances,  or  confederations  :  they  are  not  the  proper  agents 
for  this  purpose  :  states  and  foreign  powers  are  the  only  proper 
agents  for  this  kind  of  government :  show  me  an  instance  where 
the  people  have  exercised  this  business  :  has  it  not  always  gone 
through  the  legislatures?  I  refer  you  to  the  treaties  with  France, 

*  •  .,lland,  and  other  nations  :  how  were  they  made  ?  Were  they  not 


so 


DEBATES. 


[Henry* 

made  by  the  states  ?  Are  the  people  therefore  in  their  aggregate  ca- 
pacity,  the  proper  persons  to  form  a  confederacy  !  This,  therefore, 
ought  to  depend  on  the  consent  of  the  legislatures  ;  the  people  hav¬ 
ing  never  sent  delegates  to  make  any  proposition  of  changing  the 
government.  Yet  I  must  say,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  was  made 
on  grounds  the  most  pure;  and  perhaps  I  might  have  been  brought 
to  consent  to  it  so  far  as  to  the  change  of  government;  but  there  is 
one  thing  in  it  which  I  never  would  acquiesce  in.  I  mean  the  chang¬ 
ing  it  into  a  consolidated  government ;  which  is  so  abhorrent  to  my 
mind.  [The  honorable  gentleman  then  went  on  to  the  figure  we 
make  with  foreign  nations ;  the  contemptible  one  we  make  in 
France,  and  Holland  ;  which  according  to  the  substance  of  the  notes 
he  attributes  to  the  present  feeble  government.]  An  opinion  has 
gone  forth,  we  find,  that  we  are  contemptible  people  :  the  time  has 
been  when  we  were  thought  otherwise.  Under  the  same  despised 
government,  we  commanded  the  respect  of  all  Europe:  wherefore 
are  we  mow  reckoned  otherwise!  The  American  spirit  has  fled  from 
hencer  it  has  gone  to  regions,  where  it  has  never  been  expected  ;  it 
has  gone  to  the  people  of  France  in  search  of  a  splendid  govern¬ 
ment — a  strong  energetic  government.  Shall  we  imitate  the  exam¬ 
ple  of  those  nations  who  have  gone  from  a  simple  to  a  splendid  go- 
ernment !  Are  those  nations  more  worthy  of  our  imitation  ?  "What 
can  make  an  adequate  satisfaction  to  them  for  the  loss  they  have 
-suffered  in  attaining  such  a  government  for  the  loss  of  their  liberty! 
If  we  admit  this  consolidated  government,  it  will  be  because  we 
like  a  great  splendid  one.  Some  way  or  other  we  must  be  a  great 
and  mighty  empire;  we  must  have  an  army,  and  a  navy,  and  a 
number  of  things.  When  the  American  spirit  was  in  its  youth,  the 
language  of  America  was  different :  liberty,  Sir,  was  then  the  prima¬ 
ry  object.  We  are  descended  from  a  people  whose  government  was 
founded  on  liberty  :  our  glorious  forefathers  of  Great  Britian  made 
liberty  the  foundation  of  every  thing  The  country  is  become  a 
great,  mighty,  and  splendid  nation;  not  because  their  government 
is  strong  and  energetic  ;  but,  sir,  because  liberty  is  its  direct  end 
and  foundation.  We  drew  the  spirit  of  liberty  from  our  British  an¬ 
cestors  :  by  that  spirit  we  have  triumphed  over  every  difficulty. 
But  now,  sir,  the  American  spirit,  assisted  by  the  ropes  and  chains 
of  consolidation;  is  about  to  convert  this  country  into  a  powerful 
and  mighty  empire  :  if  you  make  the  citizens  of  this  country  agree 
to  become  the  subjects  of  one  great  consolidated  empire  of  Ameri¬ 
ca,  jour  government  will  not  have  sufficient  energy  to  keep  them  to¬ 
gether:  such  a  government  is  incompatible  with  the  genius  of  re¬ 
publicanism.  There  will  be  no  checks,  no  real  balances,  in  this 
government.  What  can  avail  your  specious,  imaginary  balances, 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


81 


your  rope-dancing,  chain-rattling,  ridiculous  ideal  checks  and  contri¬ 
vances'?  But,  sir,  we  are  not  feared  by  foreigners;  we  do  not  make 
nations  tremble.  Would  this  constitute  happiness,  or  secure  liber¬ 
ty?  I  trust,  sir,  our  political  hemisphere  will  ever  direct  their  opera¬ 
tions  to  the  security  of  those  objects. 

Consider  our  situation,  sir  :  go  to  the  poor  man,  and  ask  him  what 
he  does  ?  he  will  inform  you  that  he  enjoys  the  fruits  of  his  labor, 
under  his  own  fig  tree,  with  his  wife  and  children  around  him,  in 
peace  and  security.  Go  to  every  other  member  of  society,  you  will 
.find  the  same  tranquil  ease  and  content ;  you  will  find  no  alarms  or 
■disturbances.  Why  then  tell  us  of  danger  to  terrify  us  in^oan  adop¬ 
tion  of  this  new  form  of  government?  And  yet  who  knows  the 
dangers  that  this  new  system  may  produce?  They  are  out  of  the 

•  It 

sight  of  the  common  people  :  they  cannot  foresee  latent  consequen¬ 
ces.  I  dread  the  operation  of  it  on  the  middling  and  lower  classes 

of  people  :  it  is  for  them  I  fear  the  adoption  of  this  system. - 1  fear 

I  tire  the  patience  of  the  committee,  but  I  beg  to  be  indulged  with 
a  few  more  observations.  When  I  thus  profess  myself  an  advocate 
for  the  liberty  of  the  people,  I  shall  be  told,  I  am  a  designing  man, 
that  I  am  to  be  a  great  man,  that  I  am  to  be  a  demagogue ;  and 
many  similar  illiberal  insinuations  will  be  thrown  out;  but,  sir,  con¬ 
scious  rectitude  outweighs  those  things  with  me.  I  see  great  jeop¬ 
ardy  in  this  new  government.  I  see  none  from  our  present  onp.  I 
hope  some  gentleman  or  other  will  bring  forth,  in  full  array,  those 
dangers,  if  there  be  any,  that  we  may  see  and  touch  them.  I  have 
said  that  I  thought  this  a  consolidated  government:  I  will  now 
prove  it.  Will  the  great  rights  of  the  people  be  secured  by  this  go-  g 
vernment?  Suppose  it  should  prove  oppressive,  how  can  it  be  al¬ 
tered?  .Our  bill  of  rights  declares,  “  That  a  majority  of  the  commu¬ 
nity  hath  an  indubitable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right,  to  re¬ 
form  alter  or  abolish  it,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  judged  most  con¬ 
ducive  to  the  public  weal.” 

I  have  just  proved  that  one  tenth,  or  less,  of  the  people  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  a  most  despicable  minority,  may  prevent  this  reform  or  altera¬ 
tion.  Suppose  the  people  of  Virginia  should  wish  to  alter  their  go¬ 
vernment,  can  a  majority  of  them  do  it?  No,  because  they  are  con¬ 
nected  with  other  men  ,  or,  in  other  words,  consolidated  with  other 
states  :  when  the  people  of  Virginia  at  a  future  day  shall  wish  to 
alter  their  government  though  they  should  be  unanimous  in  this  de¬ 
sire,  yet  they  may  he  prevented  therefrom  by  a  despicable  minority 
at  the  extremity  of  the  United  States.  The  founders  of  your  own 
constitution  made  your  government  changeable  :  biit  the  power  of 
changing  it  is  gone  from  you.  Whither  is  it  gone?  It  is  placed  in 
the  same  hands  that  hold  the  rights  of  twelve  other  states ;  and 
vvu  3.  6 


32 


DEBATES. 


[  Henry*. 


those  who  hold  those  rights,  have  right  and  power  to  keep  them. 
It  is  not  the  particular  government  of  Virginia,  one  of  the  lead¬ 
ing  features  of  that  government  is,  that  a  majority  can  alter  it, 
when  necessary,  for  the  public  good.  This  government  is  not  a 
Virginian,  but  an  American  government.  Is  it  not,  therefore  a  con¬ 
solidated  government?  The  sixth  clause  of  your  bill  of  rights  tells 
you,  “  That  elections  of  members  to  serve  as  representatives  of  the 
people  in  assembly,  ought  to  be  free,  and  that  all  men  having  suf¬ 
ficient  evidence  of  permanent  common  interest  with,  and  attach¬ 
ment  to  the  community,  have  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  cannot  be 
taxed  or  deprived  of  their  property  for  public  uses,  without  their 
own  consent,  or  that  of  their  representatives  so  elected,  nor  bound 
by  any  law  to  which  they  have  not  in  like  manner  assented  for  the 
public  ,  good.”  But  what  does  this  constitution  say?  The  clause 
under  consideration  gives  an  unlimited  and  unbounded  power  of 
taxation.  Suppose  every  delegate  from  Virginia  opposes  a  law  lay¬ 
ing  a  tax,  what  will  it  avail?  They  are  opposed  by  a  majority ; 
eleven  members  can  destroy  their  efforts  :  those  feeble  ten  cannot 
prevent  the  passing  the  most  oppressive  tax  law.  So  that  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  spirit  and  express  language  of  your  declaration  of 
rights,  you  are  taxed,  not  by  your  own  consent,  but  by  people  who 
have  no  connexion  with  you. 

The  next  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights  tells  you,  t;  That  all  power 
of  suspending  law,  or  the  execution  of  laws,  by  any  authority  with¬ 
out  the  consent  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,  is  injurious. to 
their  rights,  and  ought  not  to  be  exercised.”  This  tells  us  that 
there  can  be  no  suspension  of  government  or  laws,  without  our  own 
consent;  yet  this  constitution  can  counteract  and  suspend  any  of 
our  laws,  that  contravene  its  oppressive  operation  ;  for  they  have  the 
power  of  direct  taxation,  which  suspends  our  bill  of  rights :  and  it 
is  expressly  provided,  that  they  can  make  all  laws  necessary  for 
carrying  their  powers  into  execution  ;  and  it  is  declared  paramount 
to  the  laws  and  constitutions  of  the  states.  Consider  how  the  only- 
remaining  defence  we  have  left  is  destroyed  in  this  manner.  Be¬ 
sides  the  expenses  of  maintaining  the  senate  and  other  house  in  as 
much  splendor  as  they  please,  there  is  to  be  a  great  and  mighty  pre¬ 
sident,  with  very  extensive  powers — the  powers  of  a  king.  He  is 
to  be  supported  in  extravagant  magnificence  :  so  that  the  whole  of 
our  property  may  be  taken  by  this  American  government,  by  laying 
what  taxes  they  please,  giving  themselves  what  salaries  they  please, 
and  suspending  our  lawrs  at  their  pleasure.  I  might  be  thought  too 
inquisitive,  but  I  believe  I  should  take  up  very  little  of  your  time  in 
enumerating  the  little  power  that  is  left  to  the  government  of  Virgin¬ 
ia;  for  this  power  is  reduced  to  little  or  nothing :  their  garrisons,  mag- 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


83 


azines,  arsenals,  and  forts,  which  will  be  situated  in  the  strongest 
places  within  the  states :  their  ten  miles  square,  with  all  the  fine 
ornaments  of  human  life,  added  to  their  powers,  and  taken  from  the 
states,  will  reduce  the  power  of  the  latter  to  nothing. 

The  voice  of  tradition,  I  trust,  will  inform  posterity  of  our  Strug" 
gles  for  freedom  :  if  our  descendants  be  worthy  the  name  of  Amer 
icans,  they  will  preserve,  and  hand  down  to  their  latest  posterity, 
the  transactions  of  the  present  times  ;  and  though,  I  confess  my  ex¬ 
clamations  are  not  'worthy  the  hearing,  they  will  see  that  I  have 
done  my  utmost  to  preserve  their  liberty  :  for  I  never  w]ll  give  up 
the  power  of  direct  taxation,  but  for  a  scourge :  I  am  willing  to 
give  it  conditionally  ;  that  is,  after  non-compliance  with  requisitions: 
I  will  do  more.  Sir,  and  what  I  hope  will  convince  the  most  seep- 
tical  man,  that  I  am  a  lover  of  the  American  union ;  that  in  case 
Virginia  shall  not  make  punctual  payment,  the  control  of  our  cus¬ 
tom-houses,  and  the  whole  regulation  of  trade,  shall  be  given  to 
congress,  and  that  Virginia  shall  depend  on  congress,  even  for  pass¬ 
ports,  till  Virginia  shall  have  paid  the  last  farthing,  and  furnished 
the  last  soldier.  Nay,  Sir,  there  is  another  alternative  to  which  I 
would  consent :  even  that  they  should  strike  us  out  of  the  union, 
and  take  away  from  us  all  federal  privileges  till  we  comply  with 
federal  requisitions,  but  let  it  depend  upon  our  own  pleasure  to  pay 
our  money  in  the  most  easy  manner  for  our  people.  Were  all  the 
states  more  terrible  than  tho  mother  country,  to  join  against  us,  I 
hope  Virginia  could  defend  herself ;  but :  Sir,  the  dissolution  of  the 
union  is  most  abhorrent  to  my  mind  :  the  first  thing  I  have  at  heart 
is  American  liberty  ;  the  second  thing  is  American  union;  and  i 
hope  the  people  of  Virginia  will  endeavor  to  preserve  that  union 
The  increasing  population  of  the  southern  states  is  far  greater  than 
that  of  New-England  :  consequently,  in  a  short  time,  they  will  be 
fat  more  numerous  than  the  people  of  that  country  :  consider  this, 
and  you  will  find  this  state  more  particularly  interested  to  support 
American  liberty,  and  not  bind  our  posterity  by  an  improvident  re¬ 
linquishment  of  our  rights.  I  would  give  the  best  security  for  a 
punctual  compliance  with  requisitions  ;  but  I  beseech  gentlemen,  at 
all  hazards,  not  to  give  up  this  unlimitted  power  of  taxation  :  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  told  us  that  these  powers  given  to  con¬ 
gress,  are  accompanied  by  a  judiciary  which  will  correct  all — on 
examination  you  will  find  this  very  judiciary  oppressively  construc¬ 
ted  ;  your  jury-trial  destroyed,  and  the  judges  dependent  on  con¬ 
gress. 

In  this  scheme  of  energetic  government,  the  people  will  find  two 
sets  of  tax-gatherers ;  the  state  and  the  federal  sheriffs.  This  it 
$eems  to  me  will  produce  such  dreadful  oppression  as  the  people 


DEBATES. 


Si 


[Henrv. 


cannot  possibly  bear  :  the  federal  sheriff  may  commit  what  oppres¬ 
sion,  make  what  distresses  he  pleases,  and  ruin  you  with  impunity; 
for  how  are  you  to  tie  his  hands'?  Have  you  any  sufficient  decided 
means  of  preventing-  him  from  sucking-  your  blood  by  speculations, 
commissions  and  fees?  Thus  thousands  of  your  people  will  be  most 
shamefully  robbed  :  our  state-sheriffs,  those  unfeeling  blood-suckers, 
have,  under  the  watchful  eye  of  our  legislature,  committed  the  most 
horrid  and  barbarous  ravages  on  our  people :  it  has  required  the 
most  constant  vigilance  of  the  legislature  to  keep  them  from  totally 
ruining  the  people :  a  repeated  succession  of  laws  has  been  made 
to  suppress  their  iniquitous  speculations  and  cruel  extortions;  and 
as  often  has  their  nefarious  ingenuity  devised  methods  of  evading 
the  force  of  those  laws :  in  the  struggle  they  have  generally  trium¬ 
phed  over  the  legislature. 

It  is  a  fact  that  lands  have  been  sold  for  five  shillings,  which  were 
worth  one  hundred  pounds:  if  sheriffs  thus  immediately  under  the  eye 
of  our  state  legislature  and  judiciary,  have  dared  to  commit  these 
outrages,  what  would  they  not  have  done  if  their  masters  had  been 
at  Philadelphia  or  New  York?  If  they  perpetrate  the  most  unwar¬ 
rantable  outrage  on  your  persons  or  property,  you  cannot  get  redress 
on  this  side  of  Philadelphia  or  New  York:  and  how  can  you  get  it 
there?  If  your  domestic  avocations  could  permit  you  to  go  thither, 
there  you  must  appeal  to  judges  sworn  to  support  this  constitution, 
in  opposition  to  that  of  any  state,  and  who  may  aloo  be  inclined  10 
favor  their  own  officeis.  When  these  harpies  are  aided  by  exercise- 
men,  who  may  search  at  any  time  your  houses  and  most  secret  re¬ 
cesses,  will  the  people  bear  it?  If  you  think  so,  you  differ  from  me: 
where  I  thought  there  was  a  possibility  of  such  mischiefs,  I  would 
grant  power  with  a  niggardly  hand  :  and  here  there  is  a  strong  pro¬ 
bability  that  these  oppressions  shall  actually  happen.  I  may  be  told 
that  it  is  safe  to  err  on  that  side  ;  because  such  regulations  may  be 
made  by  congress,  as  shall  restrain  these  officers,  and  because  laws 
are  made  by  our  representatives,  and  judged  by  righteous  judges  : 
but,  sir,  as  these  regulations  may  be  made,  so  they  may  not ;  and 
many  reasons  there  are  to  induce  a  belief  that  they  will  not,  I  shall 
therefore  be  an  infidel  on  that  point  till  the  day  of  my  death. 

This  constitution  is  said  to  have  beautiful  features  ,  but  when  I 
come  ^examine  these  features,  sir,  they  appear  to  me  horribly  fright¬ 
ful  :  among  other  deformities,  it  has  an  awful  squinting  ;  it  squints 
fowards  monarchy  :  and  does  not  this  raise  indignation  in  the  breast 
of  every  true  American?  Your  president  may  easily  become  king; 
your  senate  is  so  imperfectly  constructed  that  your  dearest  rights 
may  be  sacrificed  by  wha  ,  ..ay  be  a  small  minority:  and  a  very 
small  minority  may  contim  h  rever  unchangeably  this  government, 


VIRGINIA. 


85 


Henry.  J 

although  horridly  defective;  where  are  your  checks  in  this  govern¬ 
ment'?  Your  strong  holds  will  be  in  the  hands  of  your  enemies  :  it  is 
on  a  supposition  that  your  American  governors  shall  be  honest,  that 
all  the  good  qualities  of  this  governmrnt  are  founded  ;  but  its  defec- 
tive,  and  imperfect  construction,  puts  it  in  their  power  to  perpetrate 
the  worst  of  mischiefs,  should  they  be  bad  men  :  and,  sir,  would  not 
all  the  world,  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  hemisphere,  blame  our 
distracted  folly  in  resting  our  rights  upon  the  contingency  of  our  ru¬ 
lers  being  good  or  bad?  Shew  me  that  age  and  country  where  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  were  placed  on  the  sole  ^hance  of 
their  rulers  being  good  men,  without  a  consequent  loss  of  liberty?  I 
say  that  the  loss  of  that  dearest  privilege  has  ever  followed,  with  ab¬ 
solute  certainty,  every  such  mad  attempt. 

If  your  American  chief,  be  a  man  of  ambition,  and  abilities,  how 
easy  is  it  for  him  to  render  himself  absolute?  The  army,  is  in  his 
hands,  and  if  he  be  a  man  of  address,  it  will  be  attached  to  him,  and 
it  will  be  the  subject  of  long  meditation  with  him  to  seize  the  first 
auspicious  moment  to  accomplish  his  design  ;  and,  sir,  will  the 
American  spirit  solely  relieve  you  when  this  happens?  I  would 
Tather  infinitely,  and  I  am  sure  most  of  this  convention  are  of  the 
same  opinion,  have  a  king,  lords,  and  commons,  than  a  government, 
so  replete  with  such  insupportable  evils.  If  we  make  a  king,  we 
may  prescribe  the  rules  by  which  he  shall  rule  his  people,  and  in 
terpose  such  checks  as  shall  prevent  him  from  infringing  them  ;  but 
the  president  in  the  field  at  the  head  of  his  army  can  prescribe  the 
terms  on  which  he  shall  reign  master,  so  far  that  it  will  puzzle  any 
American  ever  to  get  his  neck  fiom  under  the  galling  yoke.  I  can¬ 
not  with  patience  think  of  this  idea.  If  ever  he  violates  the  laws, 
one  of  two  things  will  happen:  he  will  come  at  the  head  of  his  army 
to  carry  every  thing  before  him  ;  or  he  will  give  bail,  or  do  what 
Mr  Chief  Justice  will  order  him.  If  he  be  guilty,  will  not  the  rec¬ 
ollection  of  his  crimes  teach  him  to  make  one  bold  push  for  the 
American  throne?  Will  not  the  immense  difference  between  being 
master  of  every  thing,  and  being  ignominiously  tried  and  punished, 
powerfully  excite  him  to  make  this  bold  push?  But,  sir,  where  is 
the  existing  force  to  punish  him?  Can  he  not  at  the  head  of  his 
army  beat  down  every  opposition?  Away  with  your  president :  we 
shall  have  a  k  ing  :  the  army  will  salute  him  monarch  ;  your  militia 
will  leave  you  and  assist  in  making  him  king,  and  fight  against  you: 
and  what  have  you  to  oppose  this  force?  What  will  then  become 
of  you  and  yonr  rights  ?  Will  not  absolute  despotism  ensue  ? - 

[Here  Mr  HENRY  strongly  and  pathetically  expatiated  on  the 
probability  of  the  president’s  enslaving  America,  and  the  horrid, 
consequences  that  must  result.] 


36 


DEBATES. 


[Henry-. 

- What  can  be  more  defective  than  the  clause  concerning  the 

elections'?  The  control  given  to  congress  over  the  time,  place,  and 
manner  of  holding  elections,  will  totally  destroy  the  end  of  suffrage. 
The  elections  may  be  held  at  one  place,  and  the  most  inconvenient 
in  the  state;  or  they  may  be  at  remote  distances  from  those  who 
have  a  right  of  suffrage  :  hence  nine  out  of  ten  must  either  not  vote 
at  all,  or  vote  for  strangers  :  for  the  most  influential  characters  will 
be  applied  to,  to  know  who  are  the  most  proper  to  be  chosen.  I 
repeat  that  the  control  of  congress  over  the  manner ,  &c.  of  electing, 
well  warrants  this  idea.  The  natural  consequence  will  be,  that  this 
democratic  branch,  will  possess  none  of  the  public  confidence,  the 
people  will  be  prejudiced  against  representatives  chosen  in  such  an 
injudicious  manner.  The  proceedings  in  the  northern  conclave  will 
be  hidden  from  the  yeomanry  of  this  country  :  we  are  told  that  the 
yeas  and  nays  shall  be  taken  and  entered  on  the  journals  :  this,  sir, 
will  avail  nothing:  it  may  be  locked  up  in  their  chests,  and  concealed 
forever  from  the  people  ;  for  they  are  not  to  publish  what  parts  they 
thinly  require  secrecy  :  they  may  think,  and  will  think ,  the  whole 
requires  it.  Another  beautiful  feature  of  this  constitution  is,  the 
publication  from  time  to  time  of  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the 
public  money. 

This  expression,  from  time  to  time,  is  very  indefinite  and  indeter¬ 
minate  :  it  may  extend  to  a  century.  Grant  that  any  of  them  are 
wdcked,  they  may  squander  the  public  money  so  as  to  ruin  you,  and 
yet  this  expression  will  give  you  no  redress.  I  say,  they  may  ruin 
you  :  for  where,  sir,  is  the  responsibility.  They  yeas  and  nays 
will  shew  you  nothing,  unless  they  be  fools  as  well  as  knaves  :  for 
after  having  wickedly  trampled  on  the  rights  of  the  people,  they 
would  act  like  fools  indeed,  were  they  to  publish  and  divulge  their 
iniquity,  when  ihey  have  it  equally  in  their  power  to  suppress  and 
conceal  it.  Where  is  the  responsibility — that  leading  principle  in 
the  British  government?  In  that  government  a  punishment  certain 
and  inevitable  is  provided  :  but  in  this,  there  is  no  real,  actual  pun¬ 
ishment  for  the  grossest  mal-administration.  They  may  go  without 
punishment,  though  they  commit  the  most  outrageous  violation  on 
our  immunities.  That  paper  may  tell  me  they  will  be  punished.  I 
ask,  by  what  law?  They  must  make  the  law — for  there  is  no  exist¬ 
ing  law  to  do  it.  What — will  they  make  a  law  to  punish  themselves? 

This,  sir,  is  my  great  objection  to  the  constitution,  that  there  is  no 
true  responsibility — and  that  the  preservation  of  our  liberty  depends 
on  the  single  chance  of  men  being  virtuous  enough  to  make  lawrs  to 
punish  themselves. 

In  the  country  from  which  we  are  descended,  they  have  real 
and  not  imaginary  responsibility — for  their  mal-administration  has 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


87 


•cost  their  heads  to  some  of  the  most  saucy  geniuses  that  ever  were. 
The  senate,  by  making  treaties,  may  destroy  your  liberty  and  laws 
for  want  of  responsibility.  Two-thirds  of  those  that  shall  hap¬ 
pen  to  be  present,  can,  with  the  president,  make  treaties,  that  shall 
be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  :  they  may  make  the  most  ruinous 
treaties  ;  and  yet  there-is  no  punishment  for  them.  Whoever  shows 
me  a  punishment  provided  for  them  will  oblige  me.  So,  sir,  not¬ 
withstanding  there  are  eight  pillars,  they  want  another.  Where 
will  they  make  another!  I  trust,  sir,  the  exclusion  of  the  evils 
wherewith  this  system  is  replete,  in  its  present  form,  will  be  made 
a  Condition  preceded  to  its  adoption,  by  this  or  any  ofher  state. 
The  transition  from  a  general  unqualified  admission  to  offices,  to  a 
consolidation  of  government,  seems  easy,  for  though  the  American 
states  are  dissimilar  in  their  structure,  this  will  assimilate  them  : 
this,  sir,  is  itself  a  strong  consolidating  feature,  and  is  not  one  of 
the  least  dangerous  in  that  system.  Nine  states  are  sufficient  to  es¬ 
tablish  this  o-overnment  over  those  nine :  imagine  that  nine  have 
come  into  it.  Virginia  has  certain  scruples.  Suppose  she  will, 
consequently,  refuse  to  join  with  those  states— may  not  they  still 
continue  in  friendship  and  union  with  them?  If  she  sends  her  an¬ 
nual  requisitions  in  dollars,  do  you  think  their  stomachs  will  be  so 
squeamish  as  to  refuse  her  dollars?  Will  they  not  accept  her  regi¬ 
ments?  They  would  intimidate  you  into  an  inconsiderate  adoption, 
and  frightenyou  with  ideal  evils,  and  that  the  union  shall  be  dis¬ 
solved.  ‘Tis  a  bugbear,  sir: — the  fact  is,  sir,  that  the  eight  adop¬ 
ting  states  can  hardly  stand  on  their  own  legs.  Public  fame  tells  us, 
that  the  adopting  states  have  already  heart-burnings  and  animosity, 
and  repent  their  precipitate  hurry  :  this,  sir,  may  occasion  exceeding 
great  mischief.  When  I  reflect  on  these  and  many  other  circum¬ 
stances,  I  must  think  those  states  will  be  found  to  be  in  confederacy 
with  us.  If  we  pay  our  quota  of  money  annually,  and  furnish  our 
rateable  number  of  men,  when  necessary,  I  can  see  no  danger  from 
a  rejection. 

The  history  of  Switzerland  clearly  proves,  that  we  might  be  in  ami* 
cable  alliance  with  those  states  without  adopting  this  constitution. 
Switzerland  is  a  confederacy,  consisting  of  dissimilar  governments. 
This  is  an  example  which  proves  that  governments  of  dissimilar 
structures  may  be  confederated  ;  that  confederate  republic  has  stood 
upwards  of  400  years;  and  although  several  of  the  individual  re¬ 
publics  are  democratic,  and  the  rest  aristocratic,  no  evil  has  resul¬ 
ted  from  this  dissimilarity,  for  they  have  braved  all  the  power  of 
France  and  Germany  during  that  long  period.  The  Swiss  spirit, 
sir,  has  kept  them  together ;  they  have  encountered  and  overcome 
immense  difficulties  with  patience  and  fortitude.  In  the  vicinity  oi 


# 


t 


DEBATES. 


.88 


[Henrv^ 


powerful  and  ambitious  monarchs,  they  have  retained  their  indepen¬ 
dence,  republican  simplicity,  and  valor.  [Here  he  makes  a  com¬ 
parison  of  the  people  of  that  country,  and  those  of  France,  and 
'  makes  a  quotation  from  Addison,  illustrating  the  subject.]  Look  at 
the  peasants  of  that  country  and  of  France  ;  and  mark  the  difference.. 
You  will  find  the  condition  of  the  former  far  more  desirable  and  com¬ 
fortable.  No  matter  whether  the  people  be  great,  splendid  and 
powerful,  if  they  enjoy  freedom.  The  Turkish  Grand  Seignior* 
alongside  of  our  President,  would  put  us  to  disgrace but  we 
should  be  as  abundantly  consoled  for  this  disgrace,  when  our  citizens 
have  been  put  in  contrast  with  the  Turkish  slave.  The  most  valu¬ 
able  end  of  government,  is  the  liberty  of  the  inhabitants.  No  pos¬ 
sible  advantages  can  compensate  for  the  loss  of  this  privilege. 
Show  me  the  reason  why  the  American  union  is  to  be  dissolved.. 
Who  are  those  eight  adopting  states'?  Aie  they  averse  to  give  us  a 
little  time  to  consider,  before  we  conclude?  Would  such  a  disposi¬ 
tion  render  a  junction  with  them  eligible  :  or  is  it  the  genius  of  that 
kind  of  government,  to  precipitate  people  hastily  into  measures  of 
the  utmost  importance,  and  grant  no  indulgence?  If  it  be,  sir,  is  it 
lor  us  to  accede  to  such  a  government?  We  have  aright  to  have  time 
to  consider — we  shall  theiefore  insist  upon  it:  Unless  the  govern¬ 
ment  be  amended,  we  can  never  accept  it.  The  adopting  states  will 
doubtless  accept  our  money  and  our  regiments — and  what  is  to  be 
the  consequence,  if  we  are  disunited?  I  believe  it  is  yet  doubtful, 
whether  it  is  not  proper  to  stand  by  a  while,  and  see  the  effect  of 
its  adoption  in  other  states.  In  forming  a  government,  the  utmost 
care  should  be  taken  to  prevent  its  becoming  oppressive;  and  this 
government  is  of  such  an  intricate  and  complicated  a  nature,  that 
no  man  on  this  earth  can  know  its  real  operation.  The  other  states 
have  no  reason  to  think,  from  the  antecedent  conduct  of  Virginia, 
that  she  has  any  intention  of  seceding  from  the  union,  or  of  being 
less  active  to  support  the  general  welfare?  Would  they  not,  there¬ 
fore,  acquiesce  in  our  taking  time  to  deliberate — deliberate  whether 
the  measure  be  not  perilous,  not  only  for  us,  but  the  adopting  states? 

Permit  me,  sir,  to  say,  that  a  great  majority  of  the  people  even  in 
the  adopting  states,  are  averse  to  this  government.  I  believe  I 
would  be  right  to  say,  that  they  have  been  egregiously  misled. 
Pennsylvania  has ,  perhaps,  been  tricked  into  it.  If  the  other  states 
who  have  adopted  it,  have  not  been  tricked,  still  they  were  too  much 
hurried  into  its  adoption.  There  were  very  respectable  minorities 
in  several  of  them;  and  if  reports  be  true,  a  clear  majority  of  the 
people  are  averse  to  it.  If  we  also  accede,  and  it  should  prove 
grievous,  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  our  country,  which  we  all 
love,  will  be  destroyed.  This  government  has  not  the  affection  of 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


89 


the  people,  at  preseat.  Should  it  be  oppressive,  their  affection  will 
be  totally  estranged  from  it — and,  sir,  you  know  that  a  government, 
without  their  affections,  can  neither  be  durable  nor  happy.  I  speak 
as  one  poor  individual — but  when  I  speak,  I  speak  the  language  of 
thousands.  But,  sir,  I  mean  not  to  breath  the  spirit  nor  utter  the 
language  of  secession. 

O  O  • 

I  have  trespassed  so  long  on  your  patience,  I  am  really  concerned 
that  I  have  something  yet  to  say.  The  honorable  member  has  said 
we  shall  be  properly  represented.  Remember,  sir,  that  the  number 
of  our  representatives  is  but  ten,  whereof  six  is  a  majority.  Will 
those  men  be  possessed  of  sufficient  information!  A  Articular 
knowledge  of  particular  districts,  will  not  suffice.  They  must  be 
well  acquainted  with  agriculture,  commerce,  and  a  great  variety  of 
other  matters  throughout  the  continent:  they  must  know  not  only 
the  actual  state  of  nations  in  Europe  and  America,  the  situations  of 
their  farmers,  cottagers,  and  mechanics,  but  also  the  relative  situa¬ 
tions  and  intercourse  of  those  nations.  Virginia  is  as  laige  as  En¬ 
gland.  Our  proportion  of  representatives  is  but  ten  men.  In  En¬ 
gland  they  have  558.  The  house  of  commons,  in  England,  nume¬ 
rous  as  they  are,  we  are  told,  is  bribed,  and  have  bartered  away  the 
rights  of  their  constituents  :  what  then  shall  become  of  us!  Will 
these  few  protect  our  rights!  Will  they  be  incorruptible!  You 
say  they  will  be  better  men  than  the  English  commoners.  I  say  they 
will  be  infinitely  worse  men,  because  they  are  to  be  chosen  blind¬ 
folded  :  their  election  (the  t6rm,  as  applied  to  their  appointment,  is 
inaccurate)  will  be  an  involuntary  nomination,  and  a  not  choice. 

I  have,  I  fear,  fatigued  the  committee,  yet  I  have  not  said  the  one 
hundred  thousandth  part  of  what  I  have  on  my  mind,  and  wish  to 
impait.  On  this  occasion,  I  conceived  myself  bound  to  attend 
strictly  to  the  interest  of  the  state  ;  and  I  thought  her  dearest  rights 
at  stake  .  having  lived  so  long — been  so  much  honored — my  efforts 
though  small,  are  due  to  my  country.  I  have  found  my  mind  hur¬ 
ried  on  from  subject  to  subject,  on  this  very  great  occasion.  We 
have  been  all  out  of  order,  from  the  gentleman  who  opened  to-day, 
to  myself.  I  did  not  come  prepared  to  speak  on  so  multifarious  a 
subject,  in  so  general  a  manner.  I  trust  you  will  indulge  me  another 
time.  Before  you  abandon  the  present  system,  I  hope  you  will  con¬ 
sider  not  only  its  defects,  most  maturely,  but  likewise  those  of  that 
which  you  are  to  substitute  to  it.  May  you  be  fully  apprised  of  the 
dangers  of  the  latter,  not  by  fatal  experience ;  but  by  some  abler 
advocate  than  I. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  go  on  in  this  irregu¬ 
lar  manner,  contrary  to  our  resolution,  instead  or  three  or  six  weeks,, 
it  will  lake  us  six  months,  to  decide  this  question.  I  shall  endeav- 


[Randolph. 


90  DEBATES. 

or  to  make  the  committee  sensible  of  the  necessity  of  establishing 
a  national  government :  in  the  course  of  my  argument,  I  shall 
show  the  inefficacy  of  the  confederation.  It  is  too  late  to  enter  into 
the  subject  now,  but  I  shall  take  the  first  opportunity  for  that 
purpose.  I  mention  this,  to  shew  that  I  had  not  answered  him 
fully,  nor  in  a  general  way  yesterda}^. 

Friday,  &6lh  of  June,  1788. 

The  convention,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  again  re¬ 
solved  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention,-  to  take  into 
farther  consideration,  the  proposed  plan  of  government.  Mr.  Wythe 
in  the  chair. 

[The  first  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.] 

Gov.  RANDOLPH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  a  child  of  the  revolu¬ 
tion.  My  country  very  early  indeed  took  me  under  its  protection, 
at  a  time  when  I  most  wanted  it ;  and  by  a  succession  of  favors 
and  honors,  gratified  even  my  most  ardent  wishes.  I  feel  the  high¬ 
est  gratitude  and  attachment  to  my  country  ;  her  felicity  is  the  most 
fervent  prayer  of  my  heart.  Conscious  of  having  exerted  my  fac¬ 
ulties  to  the  utmost  in  her  behalf,  if  I  have  not  succeeded  in  secur¬ 
ing  the  esteem  of  m37-  countrymen,  I  shall  reap  abundant  consolation 
from  the  rectitude  of  my  intentions  :  honors,  when  compared  to  the 
satisfaction  accruing  from  a  conscious  independence  and  rectitude 
of  conduct,  are  no  equivalent.  The  unwearied  study  of  my  life, 
shall  be  to  promote  her  happiness.  As  a  citizen,  ambition  and  pop¬ 
ularity  are  no  objects  with  me.  1  expect  in  the  course  of  a  year  to 
retire  to  that  private  station  which  I  most  sincerely  and  cordially 
prefer  to  all  others.  The  security  of  public  justice,  sir,  is  what  I 
most  fervently  wish  ;  as  I  consider  that  object  to  be  the  primary 
"step  to  the  attainment  of  public  happiness.  I  can  declare  to  the 
whole  world,  that  in  the  part  I  take  in  this  very  important  question, 
I  am  actuated  by  a  regard  for  what  I  conceive,  to  be  our  true  inter¬ 
est.  I  can  also  with  equal  sincerity,  declare,  that  I  would  join  heart 
and  hand  in  rejecting  this  system,  did  I  conceive  it  would  promote 
our  happiness  :  but  having  a  strong  conviction  on  my  mind,  at  this 
time,  that  by  a  disunion  we  shall  throw  away  all  those  blessings 
we  have  so  earnestly  fought  for,  and  that  a  rejection  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  will  operate  disunion,  pardon  me  if  I  discharge  the  obligation 
j  owe  to  my  country  by  voting  for  its  adoption.  We  are  told  that 
the  report  of  dangers  is  false.  The  cry  of  peace,  sir,  is  false  :  say 
peace,  when  there  is  peace  ;  it  is  but  a  sudden  calm.  The  tempest 
growls  over  you  ;  look  round,  wheresoever  you  look,  you  see  dan¬ 
ger.  Where  there  are  so  many  witnesses  in  many  parts  of  America, 
that  justice  is  suffocated,  shall  peace  and  happiness  still  be  said  to 
•reign?  Candor,  sir,  requires  an  undisguised  representation  of  our 
•situation.  Candor,  sir,  demands  a  faithful  exposition  of  facts. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


91 

iVIany  citizens  have  found  justice  strangled  and  trampled  under  foot, 
through  the  course  of  jurisprudence  in  this  country.  Are  those  who 
have  debts  due  to  them  satisfied  with  your  government!  Are  not 
creditors  wearied  with  the  tedious  procrastination  of  your  legal  pro¬ 
cess — a  process  obscured  by '  legislative  mists!  Cast  your  eyes  to 
your  seaports,  see  how  commerce  languishes ;  this  country,  so 
blessed  by  nature,  with  every  advantage  that  can  render  commerce 
profitable,  through  defective  legislation,  is  deprived  of- all  the  bene¬ 
fits  and  emoluments  she  might  otherwise  reap  from  it.  We  hear 
many  complaints  on  the  subject  of  located  lands ;  a  variety  of  com¬ 
petitors  claiming  the  same  lands  under  legislative  acts,  pfiblic  faith 
prostrated,  aud  private  confidence1  destroyed.  I  ask  ycu  if  your  -*v 
law's  are  reverenced!  In  every  well  regulated  community  the  laws 
command  respect.  Are  yours  entitled  to  reverence!  We  not  only 
see  violations  of  the  constitution,  but  of  national  principles  in  re¬ 
peated  instances.  How  is  the  fact!  The  history  of  the  violations 
of  the  constitution  extends  from  the  year  1776,  to  this  present  time  ■; 
violations  made  by  formal  acts  of  the  legislature  :  every  thing  has 
been  drawn  within  the  legislative  vortex. 

There  is  one  example  of  this  violation  in  Virginia,  of  a  most 
striking  and  shocking  nature  ;  an  example,  so  horrid,  that  if  I  con¬ 
ceived  my  country  would  passively  permit  a  repetition  of  it,  dear  as 
it  is  to  me,  I  would  seek  means  of  expatriating  myself  from  it.  A 
man  who  was  then  a  citizen  ;was  deprived  of  his  life,  thus  :  from 
a  mere  reliance  on  general  reports,  a  gentleman  in  the  house  of  del* 
egates  informed  the  house,  that  a  certain  man  (Josiah  Philips)  had 
committed  several  crimes,  and  was  running  at  large,  perpetrating 
other  crimes  ;  he  therefore  moved  for  leave  to  attaint  him  ;  he  ob¬ 
tained  that  leave  instantly  :  no  sooner  did  he  obtain  it,  than  he 
drew  from  his  pocket  a  bill  ready  written  for  that  effect;  it  was 
read  three  times  in  one  day,  and  carried  to  the  senate.  1  will  not 
say  that  it  passed  the  same  day  through  the  senate  :  but  he  was  at¬ 
tainted  very  speedily  and  precipitately,  without  any  proof,  better 
than  vague  reports!  Without  being  confronted  with  his  accusers 
and  witnesses :  without  the  privilege  of  calling  for  evidence  in  his 
behalf,  he  was  sentenced  to  death,  and  was  afterwards  actually  ex¬ 
ecuted.  Was  this  arbitrary  deprivation  of  life,  the  dearest  gift  of 
God  to  man,  consistent  with  the  genius  of  a  republican  government! 

Is  this  compatible  with  the  spirit  of  freedom!  This,  sir,  has  made 
the  deepest  impression  in  my  heart,  and  I  cannot  contemplate  it 
without  horror.  There  are  still  a  multiplicity  of  complaints  of  the 
debility  of  the  laws.  Justice  in  many  instances  is  so  unattainable 
that  commerce  may  in  fact  be  said  to  be  stopped  entirely.  There  is 
no  peace,  sir,  in  this  land  :  can  peace  exist  with  injustice,  licem 


92  DEBATES.  [Randolph. 

tiousness,  insecurity,  and  oppression1?  These  considerations,  inde¬ 
pendent  of  many  others  which  I  have  not  yet  enumerated,  would  be 
a  sufficient  reason  for  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  because  it 
secures  the  liberty  of  the  citizen,  his  person,  and  property,  and  will 
invigorate  and  restore  commerce  and  industry.  An  additional  rea¬ 
son  to  induce  us  to  adopt  it  is,  that  excessive  licentiousness,  which 
has  resulted  from  the  relaxation  of  our  laws,  and  which  will  be 
checked  by  this  government.  Let  us  judge  from  the  fate  of  more 
ancient  nations  :  licentiousness  has  produced  tyranny  among  many 
of  them  :  it  has  contributed  as  much  (if  not  more)  as  any  other 
cause  whatsoever,  to  the  loss  of  their  liberties.  I  have  respect  for 
the  integrity  of  our  legislators.  I  believe  them  to  be  virtuous  :  but 
as  long  as  the  defects  of  the  constitution  exist,  so  long  will  laws  be 
imperfect. 

The  honorable  gentleman  went  on  further,  and  said  that  the  acces¬ 
sion  of  eight  states  is  not  a  reason  for  our  adoption ;  many  other 
things  have  been  alledged  out  of  order,  instead  of  discussing  the 
system  regularly,  a  variety  of  points  are  promiscuously  debated  in 
order  to  make  temporary  impressions  on  the  members.  Sir,  were  I 
convinced  of  the  validity  of  their  arguments,  I  would  join  them 
heart  and  hand.  Were  I  convinced  that  the  accession  of  eight 
states  did  not  render  our  accession  also  necessary  to  preserve  the 
union,  I  would  not  accede  to  it,  till  it  should  be  previously  amend¬ 
ed  :  but,  sir,  I  am  convinced  that  the  union  will  be  lost  by  our  re¬ 
jection.  Massachusetts  has  adopted  it;  she  has  recommended  sub¬ 
sequent  amendments ;  her  influence  must  be  very  considerable  to 
obtain  them.  I  trust  my  countrymen  have  sufficient  wisdom  and 
virtue  to  entitle  them  to  equal  respect.  Is  it  urged  that  being  wiser, 
we  ought  to  prescribe  amendments  to  the  other  states?  I  have  con¬ 
sidered  this  subject  deliberately  ;  wearied  myself  in  endeavoring  to 
find  a  possibility  of  preserving  the  union,  without  our  unconditional 
ratification  ;  but,  sir,  in  vain,  I  find  no  other  means.  I  ask  myself 
a  variety  of  questions  applicable  to  the  adopting  states,  and  I  con¬ 
clude,  will  they  repent  of  what  they  have  done?  Will  they  ac¬ 
knowledge  themselves  in  an  error?  Or,  will  they  recede  to  gratify 
Virginia?  My  prediction  is,  that  they  will  not.  Shall  we  stand  by 
ourselves,  and  be  severed  from  the  union,  if  amendments  cannot  be 
had?  I  have  every  reason  for  determining  within  myself,  that  our 
rejection  must  dissolve  the  union  ;  and  that  that  dissolution  will  de¬ 
stroy  our  political  happiness.  The  honorable  gentleman  was  pleas¬ 
ed  to  draw  out  several  other  arguments  out  of  order  :  that  this  go¬ 
vernment  would  destroy  the  state  governments,  the  trial  by  jury,  &c. 
&c.  and  concluded  by  an  illustration  of  his  opinion,  by  a  reference 
to  the  confederacy  of  the  Swiss.  Let  us  argue  with  unprejudiced 


93 


Randolph.]  VIRGINIA. 

minds  :  they  say  that  the  trial  by  jury  is  gone — is  this  so?  AR 
though  I  have  declared  my  determination  to  give  my  vote  for  it,  yet 
I  shall  freely  censure  those  parts  which  appear  to  me  reprehensible. 

The  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases  is  secured — in  civil  cases  it  is 
not  so  expressly  secured  as  I  should  wish  it ;  but  it  does  not  follow, 
that  congress  has  the  power  of  taking  away  thia  privilege  which  is 
secured  by  the  constitution  of  each  state,  and  not  given  away  by  this 
constitution — I  have  no  fear  on  this  subject — congress  must  regulate 
it  so  as  to  suit  every  state.  I  will  risk  my  property  on  the  cer¬ 
tainty,  that  they  will  institute  the  trial  by  jury  in  such  manner  as 
shall  accommodate  the  conveniences  of  the  inhabitants  in  every  state; 
the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  this  accommodation,  was  the  principal 
cause  of  its  not  being  provided  for.  It  will  be  the  interest  of  the 
individuals  composing  congress  to  put  it  on  this  convenient  footing. 
Shall  we  not  choose  men  respectable  for  their  good  qualities?  Or 
can  we  suppose  that  men  tainted  with  the  worst  vices  will  get  into 
congress?  I  beg  leave  to  differ  from  the  honorable  gentleman,  in  an¬ 
other  point.  He  dreads  that  great  inconveniences  will  ensue  from 
the  federal  court :  that  our  citizens  will  be  harrassed  by  being  car. 
ried  thither.  I  cannot  think  that  this  power  of  the  federal  judiciary 
will  necessarity  be  abused,  the  inconvenience  here  suggested  being 
of  a  general  nature,  affecting  most  of  the  states,  will,  by  genera! 
consent  of  the  states,  be  removed ;  and,  I  trust,  such  regulations 
shall  be  made  in  this  case,  as  will  accommodate  the  people  in  every 
state.  The  honorable  gentleman  instanced  the  Swiss  cantons,  a* 
an  example,  to  shew  us  the  possibility,  if  not  expediency,  of  being 
in  amicable  alliance  with  the  other  states,  without  adopting  this 
system.  Sir,  references  to  history  will  be  fatal  in  political  reasons 
unless  well  guarded.  Our  mental  ability  is  often  too  contracted, 
and  powers  of  investigation  so  limited,  that  sometimes  we  adduce 
as  an  example  in  our  favor,  what  in  fact  militates  against  us.  Ex¬ 
amine  the  situation  of  that  country  comparatively  to  us  :  the  ex¬ 
tent  and  situation  of  that  country  is  totally  different  from  ours,  their 
country  is  surrounded  by  powerful,  ambitious,  and  reciprocally 
jealous  nations  :  their  territory  small  and  soil  not  very  fertile.  The 
peculiarity,  sir  of  their  situation,  has  kept  them  together,  and  not 
that  system  of  alliance,  to  which  the  gentleman  seems  to  attribute 
the  durability  and  felicity  of  their  connection. 

[Here  his  excellency  quoted  some  passages  from  Stanyard,  illus¬ 
trating  his  argument,  and  largely  commented  upon  it.  The  effect 
of  which  was,  that  the  narrow  confines  of  that  country  rendered  it 
very  possible  for  a  system  of  confederacy  to  accommodate  those 
cantons,  that  would  not  suit  the  UnitedStates,  that  it  was  the  fear  of 
the  ambitious  and  warlike  nations  that  surrounded  them,  and  the  re¬ 
ciprocal  jealousy  of  the  other  European  powers  that  rendered  their 


94- 


DEBATES. 


Randolph. 


union  so  durable;  and  that  notwithstanding  these  circumstances., 
and  their  being  a  hardy  race  of  people,  yet  such  was  the  injudi¬ 
cious  construction  of  their  confederacy,  that  very  considerable 
broils  interrupted  their  harmony  sometimes.] 

His  excellency  then  continued — I  have  produced  this  example  to 
show  that  we  ought  not  to  be  amused  with  the  historical  references, 
which  have  no  kind  of  analogy  to  the  points  under  our  considera¬ 
tion.  We  ought  to  confine  ourselves  to  those  points  solely,  which 
have  an  immediate  and_  strict  similitude,  to  the  subject  of  our  dis¬ 
cussion.  The  reference  made  by  the  honorable  gentleman  over  the 
way,  is  extremely  inapplicable  to  us.  Are  the  Swiss  cantons  circum¬ 
stanced  as  we  are?  Are  we  surrounded  by  formidable  nations!  Or 
are  we  situated' in  any  manner  like  them]  We  are  not,  sir.  Then 
it  naturally  results  that  no  such  friendly  intercourse  as  he  flattered 
himself  with,  could  take  place,  in  a  ^ase  of  a  dissolution  of  our 
union  :  we  are  remotely  situated  from  powerful  nations,  the  dread 
of  whose  attack  might  impel  us  to  unite  firmly  with  one  another  r 
nor  are  we  situated  in  an  inaccessible  strong  position  :  we  have  to 
fear  much  from  one  another.  We  must  soon  ff.el  the  fatal  effects 
of  an  imperfect  system  of  union.  The  honorable  gentleman  attacks 
the  constitution  as  he  thinks  it  is  contrary  to  our  bill  of  rights?  Do 
we  not  appeal  to  the  people  by  whose  authority  all  governments  is 
made]  That  bill  of  rights  is  of  no  validity,  because,  I  conceive,  it 
is  not  formed  on  due  authority.  It  is  not  a  part  of  our  constitution  ; 
it  has  never  secured  us  against  any  danger  ;  it  has  been  repeatedly 
disregarded  and  violated.  But  we  must  not  discard  the  confedera- 
tion,  for  the  remembrance  of  its  past  services,  i  am  attached  to 
old  servants,  I  have  regard  and  tenderness  for  this  old  servant;  but 
when  reasons  tell  us,  that  it  can  no  longer  be  retained,  without 
throwing  away  all  it  has  gained  us,  and  running  the  risk  of  loosing 
every  thing  dear  to  us,  must  we  still  continue  our  attachment?  Rea¬ 
son  and  my  duty  tells  me  not.  Other  gentlemen  may  think  other¬ 
wise. 

But,  sir,  is  it  not  possible  that  men  may  differ  in  sentiments,  and 
still  be  honest?  We  have  an  inquisition  within  ourselves,  that 
leads  us  not  to  offend  so  much  against  charity.  The  gentlemen  ex¬ 
presses  a  necessity  of  being  suspicious  of  those  who  govern  :  I  will 
agree  wflth  him' in  the  necessity  of  political  jealousy  to  a  certain 
extent;  but  we  ought  to  examine  how  far  this  political  jealousy 
ought  to  be  carried  ;  I  confess  that  a  certain  degree  of  it  is  highly 
necessary  to  the  preservation  of  liberty  ;  but  it  ought  net  to  be  ex¬ 
tended' to  a  degree  W'hich  is  degrading  and  humiliating  to  human 
nature;  to  a  degree  of  restlessness,  and  active  disquietude,  suffi¬ 
cient  to  disturb  a  community,  or  preclude  the  possibility  of  political. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


m 


happiness  and  contentment,  Confidence  ought  also  to  be  equally 
limited.  Wisdom  shrinks  from  extremes,  and  fixes  on  a  medium 
as  her  choice.  Experience  and  history,  the  least  fallible  judges, 
teach  us,  that  in  forming  a  government,  the  powers  to  be  given 
must  be  commensurate  to  the  object.  A  less  degree  will  defeat  the 
intention,  and  a  greater  will  subject  the  people  to  the  depravity  of  ru¬ 
lers,  who,  though  they  are  bat  the  agents  of  the  people,  pervert 
their  powers  to  their  emolument,  and  ambitious  views. 

Mr  Chairman,  I  am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  detain  the  house ;  but 
the  relation  of  a  variety  of  matters,  renders  it  now  unavoidable.  J 
informed  the  house  yesterday  before  rising,  that  I  intended  to  shew 
the  necessity  of  having  a  national  government  in  preference  to  the 
confederation  ;  also  to  show  the  necessity  of  conceding  the  power 
of  taxation  and  distinguish  between  its  objects  ;  and  I  am  the  more 
happy  that  I  possess  materials  of  information  for  that  purpose.  My 
intention  then  is  to  satisfy  the  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  that  a 
national  government  is  absolutely  indispensable,  and  that  a  confed¬ 
eracy  is  not  eligible,  in  our  present  situation  :  the  introductory  step 
to  this  will  be,  to  endeavour  to  convince  the  house  of  the  necessity 
of  the  union,  and  that  the  present  confederation  is  actually  inade¬ 
quate  and  unamcndable.  The  extent  of  the  country  is  objected  by 
the  gentleman  over  the  way,  as  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the 
establishing  a  national  government  in  the  United  States.  It  is  a 
very  strange  and  inconsistent  doctrine  to  admit  the  necessity  of  the 
union,  and  yet  urge  this  last  objection,  which  I  think  goes  radically 
to  the  existence  of  the  union  itself.  If  the  extent  of  the  country  be 
a  conclusive  argument  against  a  national  government,  it  is  equally 
so  against  a  union  with  the  other  states.  Instead  of  entering  large¬ 
ly  into  a  discussion  of  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  different  kinds  of 
government,  or  into  an  enquiry  into  the  particular  extent  of  country, 
that  may  suit  the  genius  of  this  or  that  government,  I  ask  this 
question — Is  this  government  necessary  for  the  safety  of  Virginia? 
Is  the  union  indispensable  for  our  happiness?  I  confess  it  is  im¬ 
prudent  for  any  nation  to  form  alliance  with  another,  whose  situa¬ 
tion  and  construction  of  Government  are  dissimilar  with  its  own. 
It  is  impolitic  and  improper  for  men  of  opulence  to  join  their  inte¬ 
rest  with  men  of  indigence  and  chance.  Rut  we  are  now  enquiring 
particularly,  whether  Virginia,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
other  states,  can  exist  without  the  union.  A  hard  question,  per¬ 
haps,  after  what  has  been  said.  I  will  venture,  however  to  say, 
she  cannot.  I  shall  not  rest  contented  with  asserting — I  shall  en- 

O 

deavor  to  prove. 

Look  at  the  most  powerful  nations,  on  earth.  England  and 
France  have  had  recourse  to  this  expedient :  those  countries  found 


DEBATES. 


96 


[Randolph. 


It  necessary  to  unite  with  their  immediate  neighbors,  and  this  union 
has  prevented  the  most  lamentable  mischiefs.  What  divine  pre¬ 
eminence  is  Virginia  possessed  of  above  other  states'?  Can  Vir¬ 
ginia  send  her  navy  and  thunder  to  bid  defiance  to  foreign  nations? 
And  can  she  exist  without  an  union  with  her  neighbors,  when  the 
most  potent  nations  have  found  such  an  union  necessary,  not  only 
to  their  political  felicity,  but  their  national  existence'?  Let  us  ex¬ 
amine  her  ability  :  although  it  be  impossible  to  determine  with  ac- 
curacjrwhat  degree  of  internal  strength  a  nation  ought  to  possess, 
to  enable  it  to  stand  by  itself,  yet  there  are  certain  sure  facts  and 
circumstances  which  demonstrate  that  a  particular  nation  cannot 
stand  singly.  I  have  spoken  with  freedom,  and,  I  trust  I  have  done 
it  with  decency ;  but  I  must  also  speak  the  truth.  If  Virginia  can 
exist  without  the  union,  she  must  derive  that  ability  from  one  or 
other  of  these  sources,  viz :  from  her  natural  situation,  or  because 
she  has  no  reason  to  fear  from  other  nations.  What  is  her  situa¬ 
tion?  She  is  not  inaccessible  :  she  is  not  a  petty  republic,  like  that 
of  St  Marino,  surrounded  by  rocks  and  mountains,  with  a  soil  not 
very  fertile,  nor  worthy  the  envy  of  surrounding  nations  :  were  this, 
sir,  her  situation,  she  might  like  that  petty  state  subsist,  separated 
from  all  the  world.  On  the  contrary,  she  is  very  accessible :  the 
large  capacious  bay  of  Chesapeake,  which  is  but  too  excellently 
adapted  for  the  admission  of  enemies,  renders  her  very  vulnerable 
I  am  informed,  and  I  believe  rightly,  because  I  derive  my  infor¬ 
mation  from  those  whose  knowledge  is  most  respectable,  that  Vir* 
giiiia  is  in  a  very  unhappy  position  with  respect  to  the  access  of  foes 
by  sea,  though  happily  situated  for  commerce.  This  being  her  sit¬ 
uation  by  sea,  let  us  look  at  land.  She  has  frontiers  adjoining  the 
states  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and  North  Carolina ;  two  of  those 
states  have  declared  themselves  members  of  the  union  :  will  she  be 
inaccessible  to  the  inhabitants  of  those  states?  Cast  your  eyes  to 
the  western  country,  that  is  inhabited  by  cruel  savages,  your  natu¬ 
ral  enemies;  besides  their  natural  propensity  to  barbarity,  they  may 
be  excited  by  the  gold  of  foreign  enemies  to  commit  the  most  hor¬ 
rid  ravages  on  your  people?  Our  great  increasing  population  is  one 
remedy  to  this  evil ,  but  being  scattered  thinly  over  so  extensive  a 
country,  how  difficult  is  it  to  collect  their  strength,  or  defend  the 
country?  This  is  one  point  of  weakness.  I  wish  for  the  honor  of 
my  countrymen  that  it  was  the  only  one.  There  is  another  circum¬ 
stance  which  renders  us  more  vulnerable.  Are  we  not  weakened  by 
the  population  of  those  whom  we  hold  in  slavery?  The  day  may 
come  when  they  may  make  impression  upon  us.  Gentlemen  who 
have  been  long  accustomed  to  the  contemplation  of  the  subject,  think 
there  is  a  cause  of  alarm  in  this  case  :  the  number  of  those  people, 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


97 


compared  to  that  of  the  whites,  is  an  immense  proportion  :  their 
number  amounts  to  236,000 — that  of  the  whites,  only  to  352,000. 
Will  the  American  spirit,  so  much  spoken  of,  repel  an  invading-  en¬ 
emy,  or  enable  you  to  obtain  an  advantageous  peace!  Manufactures 
and  military  stores  may  afford  relief  to  a  country  exposed  :  have  we 
these  at  present!  Attempts  have  been  made  to  have  these  here.  If 
we  shall  be  separated  from  the  union,  shall  our  chance  of  having 
these  be  greater.  Or  will  not  the  want  of  these  be  more  deplorable! 

We  shall  be  told  of  the  exertions  of  Virginia  under  the  confede¬ 
ration — her  achievements  when  she  had  no  commerce :  these,  sir*, 
were  necessary  for  her  immediate  safety,  nor  would  these  have 
availed,  without  the  aid  of  the  other  states.  Those  states,  then  our 
friends,  brothers  and  supporters,  will,  if  disunited  from  us,  be  our  bit¬ 
terest  enemies.  If  then,  sir,  Virginia,  from  her  situation,  is  not  inac¬ 
cessible  or  invulnerable,  let  us  consider  if  she  be  protected  by  hav¬ 
ing  no  cause  to  fear  from  other  nations  :  has  she  no  cause  to  fear! 
You  will  have  cause  to  fear  as  a  nation,  if  disunited  ;  you  will  not 
only  have  this  cause  to  fear  from  yourselves,  from  that  species  of 
population  I  before  mentioned,  and  your  once  sister  states,  but  from 
the  arms  of  other  nations  ;  have  you  no  cause  of  fear  from  Spain, 
whose  dominions  border  on  your  country!  Every  nation,  every  peo¬ 
ple,  in  our  circumstances,  have  already  had  abundant  cause  to  fear. 
Let  us  see  the  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  France  ;  let  us  suppose 
Virginia  separated  from  the  other  states  ;  as  part  of  the  former  con¬ 
federated  states,  she  will  owe  France  a  very  considerable  sum — 
France  will  be  as  magnanimous  as  ever.  France,  by  the  law 
of  nations,  will  have  a  right  to  demand  the  whole  of  her,  or  of  the 
others.  If  France  were  to  demand  it,  what  could  become  of  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  America!  Could  she  not  destroy  what  little  commerce  we 
have!  Could  she  not  seize  our  ships  and  cairy  havoc  and  destruc¬ 
tion  before  her  on  our  shores!  The  most  lamentable  desolation 
would  take  place.  We  owe  a  debt  to  Spain  also  ,  do  we  expect  in¬ 
dulgence  from  that  quarter!  That  nation  has  a  right  to  demand  the 
debt  due  to  it,  and  power  to  enforce  that  right.  Will  the  Dutch  be 
silent  about  the  debt  due  to  them!  Is  there  any  one  pretends,  that 
any  of  these  nations  will  be  patient!  The  debts  due  the  British  are 
also  very  considerable  ;  these  debts  have  been  withheld  contrary  to 
treaty  ;  if  Great  Britain  will  demand  the  payment  of  these  debts  pre- 
remptorily,  what  will  be  the  consequence!  Can  we  pay  them  if  de¬ 
manded!  Will  no  danger  result  from  a  refusal!  Will  the  British 
nation  suffer  their  subjects  to  be  stripped  of  their  property!  Is  not 
that  nation  amply  able  to  do  its  subjects'  justice!  Will  the  resent¬ 
ment  of  that  powerful  and  supercilious  nation  sleep  forever!  If 
we  become  one  sole  nation,  uniting  with  our  sister*  states,  our  means 
vcL.  3.  7 


'98 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


of  defence  will  be  greater;  the  indulgence  for  the  payment  of  those 
debts  will  be  greater,  and  the  danger  of  an  attack  less  probable. 
Moreover  vast  quantities  of  lands  have  been  sold  by  citizens  of  this 
country  to  Europeans,  and  these  lands  cannot  be  found.  Will  this 
fraud  be  countenanced  or  endured!  Among  so  many  causes  of  dan¬ 
ger,  shall  we  be  secure,  separated  from  our  sister  states'?  Weak¬ 
ness  itself,  sir,  will  invite  some  attack  upon  your  country.  Contem¬ 
plate  our  situation  deliberatly,  and  consult  history ;  it  will  inform 
you  that  people  in  our  circumstance  have  ever  been  attacked,  and 
successfully:  open  any  page,  and  you  will  there  find  our  danger 
truly  depicted.  If  such  a  people  had  any  thing,  was  it  not  taken? 
The  fate  which  will  befal  us,  I  fear,  sir,  will  be,  that  we  shall  be 
made  a  partition  of.  How  will  these,  our  troubles,  be  removed? 
Can  we  have  any  dependence  oncommerce?  Can  we  make  any  com¬ 
putation  on  this  subject?  Where  will  our  flag  appear?  So  high  is  the 
spirit  of  commercial  nations,  that  they  will  spend  five  times  the  val¬ 
ue  of  the  object,  to  exclude  their  rivals  from  a  participation  in  com¬ 
mercial  profits;  they  seldom  regard  any  expenses.  If  we  should 
be  divided  from  the  rest  of  the  states,  upon  what  footing  would  our 
navigation  in  the  Mississippi  be?  What  would  be  the  probable 
conduct  of  France  and  Spain?  Every  gentleman  may  imagine,  in 
his  own  mind,  the  natural  consequences.  To  these  considerations, 
I  might  add  many  others  of  a  similar  nature.  Were  I  to  say  that  the 
boundary  between  us  and  North  Carolina  is  not  yet  settled,  I  should 
be  told,  that  Virginia  and  that  state  go  together.  But  what,  sir, 
will  be  the  consequence  of  the  dispute  that  may  arise  between  us  and 
Maryland  on  the  subject  of  Potomac  river.  It  is  thought  Virginia 
has  a  right  to  an  eqnal  navigation  with  them  in  that  river.  If  ever 
it  should  be  decided  on  grounds  of  prior  right,  their  charter  will  in¬ 
evitably  determine  it  in  their  favor.  The  country  called  the  North¬ 
ern  Neck,  will  probably  be  severed  from  Virginia:  there  is  not  a 
doubt  but  the  inhabitants  of  that  part  will  annex  themselves  to  Ma¬ 
ryland,  if  Virginia  refuse  to  accede  to  the  union.  The  recent  ex¬ 
ample  of  those  regulations  lately  made  respecting  that  territory 
will  illustrate  that  probability.  Virginia  will  also  be  in  danger  of  a 
conflict  with  Pennsylvania,  on  the  subject  of  boundaries.  I  know 
that  some  gentlemen  are  thoroughly  persuaded  that  we  have  a  right 
to  those  disputed  boundaries.:  if  we  have  such  a  right  I  know  not 
where  it  is  to  be  found. 

Are  we  not  borderers  on  states  that  will  be  separated  from  us? 
Call  to  mind  the  history  of  every  part  of  the  world,  where  nations 
bordered  on  one  another,  and  consider  the  consequences  of  our  sep¬ 
aration  from  the  union.  Peruse  those  histories,  and  you  find  such 
countries  to  have  ever  been  almost  a  perpetual  scene  of  bloodshed  and 


Randolph/] 


VIRGINIA. 


99 

slaughter.  The  inhabitants  of  one  escaping  from  punishment  into 
the  other- — protection  given  vthem — consequent  pursuit — robbery, 
cruelty,  and  murder.  A  numerous  standing  army,  that  dangerous 
expedient,  would  be  necessary,  but  not  sufficient,  for  the  defence  of 
such  borders.  Every  gentleman  will  amplify  the  scene  in  his  own 
mind. 

If  you  wish  to  know  the  extent  of  such  a  scene,  look  at  the  his¬ 
tory  of  England  and  Scotland  before  the  union,  you  will  see  their 
borderers  continually  committing  depredations,  and  cruelties  of  the 
most  calamitous  and  deplorable  nature  on  one  another.  Mr  Chair^ 
man,  were  we  struck  off  from  the  union,  and  disputes  of  the  back- 
lands  should  be  renewed,  which  are  Of  the  most  alarming  nature, 
and  which  must  produce  uncommon  mischiefs,  can  you  inform  me 
how  this  great  subject  would  be  settled!  Virginia  has  a  large  un¬ 
settled  country  :  she  has  at  last  quieted  it.  But  there  are  great 
doubts  whether  she  has  taken  the  best  way  to  effect  it.  If  she  has 
not,  disagreeable  consequences  may  ensue.  I  have  before  hinted 
at  some  other  causes  of  quarrel  between  the  other  states  and  us  : 
particularly  the  hatred  that  would  be  generated  by  commercial  com¬ 
petitions.  I  will  only  add,  on  that  subject,  that  controversies  may 
arise  concerning  the  fisheries,  which  may  terminate  in  wars.  Pa¬ 
per  money  may  also  be  an  additional  source  of  disputes.  Rhode 
Island  has  been  in  one  continued  train  of  opposition  to  national  du¬ 
ties  and  integrity  ;  they  have  defrauded  their  creditors  by  their  pa¬ 
per  money.  Other  states  have  also  had  emissions  of  paper  money, 
to  the  ruin  of  credit  and  commerce.  May  not  Virginia,  at  a  future 
day  also  recur  to  the  same  expedient?  Has  Virginia  no  affection 
for  paper  money,  or> disposition  to  violate  contracts?  I  fear  she  is  as. 
\fond  of  these  measures  as  most  other  states  in  the  union.  The  in¬ 
habitants  of  the  adjacent  states  would  be  affected  by  the  deprecia¬ 
tion  of  paper  money,  which  would  assuredly  produce  a  dispute  with 
those  states.  This  danger  is  taken  away  by  the  present  constitu¬ 
tion,  as  it  provides,  “That  no  state  shall  emit  bills  of  credit.”  Ma¬ 
ryland  has  counteracted  the  policy  of  this  state  frequently,  and  may 
be  meditating  examples  of  this  kind  again.  Before  the  revolution, 
there  was  a  contest  about  those  backlands,  in  which  even  govern¬ 
ment  was  a  party;  it  was  put  an  end  to  by  the  war.  Pennsylvania 
was  ready  to  enter  into  a  war  with  us,  for  the  disputed  lands  near 
the  boundaries,  and  nothing  but  the  superior  prudence  of  the  man 
who  was  at  the  head  of  affairs  in  Virginia,  could  have  prevented  it. 

I  beg  leave  to  remind  you  of  the  strength  of  Massachusetts,  and 
other  states  to  the  north,  and  what  would  -their  conduct  be  to  as  if 
disunited  from  them  :  in  case  of  a  conflict  between  us  and  Mary¬ 
land  or  Pennsylvania,  they  would  be  aided  by  the  whole  strength 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


W) 

of  the  more  northern  states;  in  short,  by  that  of  the  adopting  states. 
For  these  reasons,  I  conceive,  that  if  Virginia  supposes  she  has  no 
cause  of  apprehension,  she  will  find  herself  ip  a  fatal  error. 

Suppose  the  American  spirit  in  the  fullest  vigor  in  Virginia, 
what  military  preparations  and  exertions  is  she  capable  of  making!' 
The  other  states  have  upwards  of  330,000  men  capable  of  bearing 
arms  :  this  will  be  a  good  army,  or  they  can  very  easily  raise  a 
good  army  out  of  so  great  a  number.  Our  militia  amounts  to 
50,000  ;  even  stretching  it  to  the  improbable  amount  (urged  by  some) 
of  60,000 — in  case  of  an  attack;  what  defence  can  we  make!  Who 
are  militia!  Can  we  depend  solely  upon  these!  I  will  pay  the  last 
tribute  of  gratitude  to  the  militia  of  my  country:  they  performed 
3ome  of  the  most  gallant  feats  during  the  last  war  and  acted  nobly 
as  men  inured  toother  avocations  could  be  expected  to  do;  but 
sir,  it  is  dangerous  to  look  to  them  as  our  sole  protectors.  Did  ever 
militia  defend  a  country?  Those  of  Pennsylvania  were  said  to  dif¬ 
fer  very  little  from  regulars,  yet  these,  sir,  were  insufficient  for  the 
defence  of  that  state.'  The  militia  of  our  country  will  be  wanted 
for  agriculture  ;  on  this  noblest  of  arts  depends  the  virtue  and  the 
very  existence  of  a  country;  if  it  be  neglected,  every  thing  else 
must  be  in  a  state  of  ruin  and  decay.  It  must  be  neglected  if  those 
hands  which  ought  to  attend  to  it  are  occasionally  called  forth  on 
military  expeditions.  Some  also  will  be  necessary  for  manufactu¬ 
rers,  and  those  mechanic  arts  which  are  necessary  for  the  aid  of  the 
farmer  and  planter.  If  we  had  men  sufficient  in  number  to  defend 
ourselves,  it  could  not  avail  without  other  requisites.  We  must 
have  a  navy,  to  be  supported  in  time  of  peace  as  well  as  war,  to 
guard  our  coasts  and  defend  us  against  invasions.  The  impossibili¬ 
ty  of  building  and  equiping  a  fleet  in  short  time  constitutes  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  having  a  certain  number  of  ships  of  war  always  ready 
in  time  of  peace:  the  maintaining  a  navy  will  require  money — and 
where,  sir,  can  we  get  money  for  this  and  other  purposes?  How 
shall  we  raise  it?  Review  the  enormity  of  the  debts  due  by  this 
country :  the  amount  of  the  debt  we  owe  to  the  continent,  for  bills 
of  credit,  rating  at  forty  for  one,  will  amount  to  between  6  or  700,000 
pounds.  There  is  also  due  the  continent,  the  balance  of  re¬ 
quisitions  due  by  us,  and  in  addition  to  this  proportion  of  the  old 
continental  debt,  there  are  the  foreign,  domestic,  state,  military,  and 
loan-office  debts ;  to  which  when  you  add  the  British  debt,  where 
is  the  possibility  of  finding  money  to  raise  an  army  or  navy?  Re¬ 
view  then  your  real  ability.  Shall  we  recur  to  loans?  Nothing  can- 
be  more  impolitic  ;  they  impoverish  a  nation.  We,  sir,  have  noth¬ 
in'*  to  repay  them,  nor,  sir,  can  we  procure  them.  Our  numbers  are 
daily  increasing  by  emigration,  but  this,  sir,  will  not  relieve  us„ 


"Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


101 


when  our  credit  is  gone,  and  it  is  impossible  to  borrow  money.  If 
the  imposts  and  duties  in  Virginia,  even  on  the  present  footing,  be 
very  unproductive,  and  not  equal  to  our  necessity,  what  would  it  be 
if  we  were  separated  from  the  union?  From  the  first  of  September, 
to  the  first  of  June,  the  amount  put  into  the  treasury  is  only  5059,000, 
or  a  little  more.  But,  sir,  if  smuggling  be  introduced  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  high  duties,  or  otherwise,  and  the  Potomac  should  be 
lost,  what  hope  is  there  of  getting  money  there?  Shall  we  be  asked 
if  the  impost  should  be  bettered  by  the  union?  I  answer  that  it 
will,  sir.  Credit  beino-  restored  and  confidence  diffused  in  the  coun- 
try,  merchants  and  men  of  wealth  will  be  induced  to  come  among 
us,  emigration  will  increase,  and  commerce  will  flourish  ;  the  im¬ 
post  will  therefore  be  more  sure  and  productive. 

Under  these  circumstances,  nan  you  find  men  to  defend  you?  If 
not  men,  where  can  you  have  a  navy?  It  is  an  old  observation,  that 
he  who  commands  the  sea,  will  command  the  land  ;  and  it  is  justi¬ 
fied  by  modern  experience  in  war. — The  sea  can  only  be  command¬ 
ed  by  commercial  nations.  The  United  States  have  every  means 
by  nature  to  enable  them  to  distribute  supplies  mutually  among  one 
another,  to  supply  other  nations  with  many  articles,  and  to  carry  for 
other  nations.  Our  commerce  would  not  be  kindly  received  for 
foreigners,  if  transacted  solely  by  ourselves;  as  it  is  the  spirit  of 
commercial  nations  to  engross  as  much  as  possible  the  carrying 
trade,  this  makes  it  necessary  to  defend  our  commerce  :  but  how 
shall  we  encompass  this  end?  England  has  arisen  to  the  greatest 
height,  in  modern  times,  by  her  navigation  act,  and  other  excellent 
regulations.  The  same  means  would  produce  the  same  effects.  We 
have  inland  navigation.  Our  last  exports  did  not  exceed  501,000,000. 
Our  export  trade  is  entirely  in  the  hands  of  foreigners.  We 
have  no  manufactures — depend  for  supples  on  other  nations,  and  so 
far  are  we  from  having  any  carrying-trade,  that  as  I  have  already 
said,  our  exports  are  in  the  hands  of  foreigners.  Besides  the  profit 
that  might  be  made  by  our  natural  materials,  much  greater  gains 
would  accure  from  their  being  first  wrought  before  they  were  ex¬ 
ported.  England  has  reaped  immense  profits  by  this,  nay  even  by 
purchasing  and  working  up  those  materials  which  their  country  did 
not  afford  :  her  success  in  commerce  is.  generally  ascribed  to  her 
navigation  act.  Virginia  would  not,  incumbered  as  she  is,  agree  to 
have  such  an  act.  Thus  for  the  want  of  a  navy,  are  we  deprived  of 
'the  multifaious  advantages  of  our  natural  situation,  nor  is  it  possi¬ 
ble,  that  if  the  union  if  dissolved,  we  ever  should  have  a  navy  suf¬ 
ficient  either  for  cur  defence  or  the  extension  of  our  trade. 

I  beg  gentlemen  to  consider  these  things — our  inability  to 
raise  and  man  a  navy,  and  the  -dreadful  consequences  of  the 


DEBATES 


102 


[Randolph. 


dissolution  of  the  union.  I  will  close  this  catalogue  of  the- 
evils  of  the  dissolution  of  the  union,  by  recalling' to  your  mind  what 
passed  in  the  year  1781.  Such  was  the  situation  of  our  affairs  then,, 
that  the  powers  of  dictator  was  given  to  the  commander-in-chief  to 
save  us  from  destruction.  This  shews  the  situation  of  the  country 

i  • 

to  have  been  such  as  to  make  it  ready  to  embrace  an  actual  dictator. 
At  some  future  period,  wiILnotTour  distresses  impel' us  to  do  what 
the  Dutch  have  done — throw  all  power  into  the  hands  of  a  stadt- 
holder?  How  infinitely  more  wise  and  eligible  than  this  desperate 
alternative  is- an  union  with  our  American  brethern?  I  feel  myself 
so  abhorrent  to  any  thing  that  will  dissolve  our  union,  that  I  cannot 
prevail  with  myself  to  assent  to  it  directly  or  indirectly.  If  the 
union  is  to  be  dissolved*  what  step  is  to  be  taken?  Shall  we  form  a 
partial  confederacy  ?  Or,  is  it  expected  that  we  shall  successfully 
apply  to  foreign  alliance  for  military  aid  ?  This  last  measure,  sir,, 
has  ruined  almost  every  nation  that  used  it :  so  dreadful  an  example 
ought  to  be  most  cautiously  avoided  ;  for  seldom  has  a  nation  re¬ 
curred  to  the  expedient  of  foreign  succor,  without  being  ultimately 
crushed  by  that  succor.  We  may  lose  our  liberty  and  independence 
by  an  injudicious  scheme  of  policy;  admitting  it  to  be  a  scheme 
replete  with  safety,  what  nation  shall  we  solicit? — France  ?  She 
will  disdain  a  connection  with  the  people  in  our  predicament.  I 
would  trust  every  thing  to  the  magnanimity  of  that  nation — but  she 
would  despise  a  people  who  had  like  us,  so  imprudently  separated 
from  their  brethren;  and,  sir,  were  she  to  accede  to  our  proposal,  with 
what  facility  could  she  become  mistress  of  our  country  ?  To  what 
nation  then  shall  we  apply?  To  Great  Britain  ?  Nobody  has  as  yet 
trusted  that  idea.  An  application  to  any  other  must  be  either  fruit¬ 
less  or  dangerous:  to  those  who  advocate  local  confederacies,  and 
at  the  same  time  preach  up  for  republican  liberty,  I  answer  that  their 
conduct  is  inconsistent :  the  defence  of  such<  partial  confederacies 
will  require  such  a  degree  of  force  and  expense,  as  will  destroy 
every  feature  of  republicanism.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  I  see 
nought  but  destruction  in  a  local  confederacy.  With  what  state  can 
we  confederate  but  North  Carolina?  North  Carolina  situated  worse 
than  ourselves.  Consult  your  own  reason  ;  I  beseech  gentlemen 
most  seriously  to  reflect  on  the  consequences  of  such  a  confederacy: 
I  beseech  them  to  consider,  whether  Virginia  and  North  Carolina, 
both  oppressed  with  debts  and  slaves,  can  defend  themselves  exter¬ 
nally,  or  make  their  people  happy  internally.  North  Carolina 
having  no  strength  but  militia,  and  Virginia  in  the  same  situation, 
will  make,  I  fear,  but  a  despicable  figure  in  history.  Thus,  sir,  I 
hope  that  I  have  satisfied  you,  that  we  are  unsafe  without  an  union* 
— and  that  in  union  alone  safety  consists. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


102 


I  come  now,  sir,  to  the  great  enquiry,  whether  the  confederation 
be  such  a  government  as  we  ought  to  continue  under,  whether  it  be 
such  a  government  as  can  secure  the  felicity  of  any  free  people.  Did 
I  believe  the  confederation  was  a  good  thread,  which  might  be 
broken  without  destroying  its  utility  entirely,  I  might  be  induced  to 
concur  in  putting  it  together ;  but  I  am  so  thoroughly  convinced  of 
its  incapacity  to  be  mended  or  spliced,  that  1  would  sooner  recur  to 
any  other  expedient. 

When  I  spoke  last,  I  endeavored  to  express  my  sentiments  con¬ 
cerning  that  system,  and  to  apologize  (if an  apology  was  necessary) 
for  the  conduct  of  its  framers  ;  that  it  was  hastily  devised  to  enable 
us  to  repel  a  powerful  enemy,  that  the  subject  was  novel,  and  that 
its  inefficacy  was  not  discovered  till  requisitions  came  to  be  made 
by  congress.  In  the  then  situation  of  America,  a  speedy  remedy 
was  necessary  to  W'ard  off  the  danger,  and  this  sufficiently  answered 
that  purpose,  but  so  universally  is  its  imbecility  now  known,  that  it 
is  useless  for  me  to  exhibit  it  at  this  time.  Has  not  Virginia,  as  well 
as  every  other  state  acknowledged  its  debility,  by  sending  delegates 
to  the  general  convention  ?  The  confederation  is,  of  all  things,  the 
most  unsafe,  not  only  to  trust  to  in  its  present  form,  but  even  to 
amend. 

The  object  of  a  federal  government  is  to  remedy  and  strengthen 
the  weakness  ol  its  individual  branches,  whether  that  weakness 
arises  from  situation  or  from  any  external  cause.  With  respect  to 
the  first,  is  it  not  a  miracle  that  the  confederation  carried  us  through 
the  last  warl  It  was  our  unanimity,  sir,  that  carried  us  through  it. 
That  system  was  not  ultimately  concluded  till  the  year  1781.  Al¬ 
though  the  greatest  exertions  were  made  before  that  time :  when 
came  requisitions  for  men  and  money ;  its  defects  then  were  imme¬ 
diately  discovered  :  the  quotas  of  men  were  readily  sent ;  not  so 
those  of  money.  One  state  feigned  inability,  another  would  not  com¬ 
ply  till  the  rest  did  ;  and  various  excuses  were  offered  ;  so  that  no 
money  was  sent  into  the  treasury,  not  a  requisition  was  fully  com¬ 
plied  with.  Loans  were  the  next  measure  fallen  upon  :  upwards  of 
80,000,000  of  dollars  were  wanting,  beside  the  emissions  of  dollars, 
forty  for  one.  These  things  shew  the  impossibility  of  relying  on 
requisitions. 

[Here  his  excellency  enumerates  the  different  delinquencies  of 
different  states,  and  the  consequent  distresses  of  congress.]  If  the 
American  spirit  is  to  be  depended  upon,  I  call  him  to  awake,  to  see 
how  his  Americans  have  been  disgraced  :  but  I  have  no  hopes  that 
things  will  be  better  hereafter.  I  fully  expect  things  will  be  as  they 
have  been,  and  that  the  same  derangement  will  produce  similar  mis¬ 
carriages,  Will  the  American  spirit  produce  money  or  credit,  unless 


104  DEBATES.  [Randolph.- 

we  alter  our  system]  Are  we  not  in-  a  contemptible  situation]  Are 
we  not  the  jests  of  other  nations] 

But,  it  is  insinuated  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  we  want  to 
be  a  grand,  splendid,  and  magnificent,  people  :  we  wish  not  to  be¬ 
come  so  :  the  magnificence  of  a  royal  court  is  not  our  object.  We 
want  a  government,  sir — a  government  that  will  have  stability, 
and  give  us  security:  for  our  present  government  is  destitute  of  the 
one  and  incapable  of  producing  the  other.  It  cannot,  perhaps  with 
propriety,  be  denominated  a  government,  being  void  of  that  energy 
requisite  to  enforce  sanctions.  I  wish  my  country  not  to  be  con¬ 
temptible  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations.  A  well  regulated  commit* 
nity  is  always  respected.  It  is  the  internal  situation,  the  defects  of 
government,  that  attracts  foreign  contempt— that  contempt,  sir,  is 
too  often  followed  by  subjugation.  Advert  to  the  contemptous 
manner  in  which  a  shrewd  politician  speaks  of  our  government. 

[Here  his  excellency  quoted  a  passage  from  lord  Sheffield,  the 
purport  of  which  was,  that  Great  Britain  might  engross  our  trade  on 
her  own  terms  :  that  the  imbecility  and  inefficacy  of  our  general  gov* 
eminent  were  such,  that  it  was  impossible  we  could  counteract  her 
policy,  however  rigid  or  illiberal  towards  us,  her  commercial  regula¬ 
tions  might  be.] 

Reflect  but  a  moment  on  our  situation.  Docs  it  not  invite  real 
hostility]  The  conduct  of  the  British  ministry  to  us,  is  the  natural 
effect  of  our ‘unnerved  government.  Consider  the  commercial  regu¬ 
lations  between  us  and  Maryland.  Is  it  not  known  to  gentle* 
men,  that  the  state  have  been  making  reprisals  on  each  other,  to 
obviate  a  repetition  of  which,  in  some  degree,  these  regulations  have 
been  made:  can  we  not  see  from  this  circumstance,  the  jealousy,  ri- 
valship,  and  hatred  that  would  subsist  between  them,  in  case  this 
state  was  out  of  the  Union]  They  are  importing  states,  and  impor¬ 
ting  states  will  ever  be  competitors  and  rivals.  Rhode  Island  and 
Connecticut  have  been  on  the  point  of  war,  on  the  subject  of  their 
paper  money  ;  congress'did  not  attempt  to  interpose.  When  Massa¬ 
chusetts  was  distressed  by  [the  late  insurrection,  congress  could  not 
relieve  her.  Who  headed  that  insurrection]  Recollect  the  facility 
with  which  it  was  raised,  and  the  very  little  ability  of  the  ringlea¬ 
der,  and  you  cannot  but  deplore  the  extreme  debility  of  our  merely 
nominal  government  :  we  are  too  despicable  to  be  regarded  by  for¬ 
eign  nations.  The  defects  of  the  confederation  consisted  principally 
in  the  want  of  power.  It  bad  nominally  powers — powers  on  paper, 
which  it  could  not  use.  The  power  of  making  peace  and  war  is  ex¬ 
pressly  delegated  to  congress  ;  yet  the  power  of  granting  passports 
though  within  that  of  making  peace  and  war,  was  considered  by  Vir¬ 
ginia  as  belonging  to  herself.  Without  adequate  powers  vested  U\ 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


fo& 

Congress,  America  cannot  be  respectable  in  the  eyes  of  other  nations'? 
Congress,  sir,  ought  to  be  fully  vested  with  power  to  support,  the 
union— protect  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  maintain  their  com¬ 
merce,  and  defend  them  from  external  invasions  and  insults,  and  in¬ 
ternal  insurrections  ;  to  maintain  justice,  and  promote  harmony  and 
public  tranquility  among  the  states. 

A  government  not  vested  with  these  powers  will  ever  be  found 
unable  to  make  us  happy  or  respectable  ;  how  far  the  confederation 
is  different  from  such  a  governmeut,  is  known  to  all  America.  Instead 
of  being  able  to  cherish  and  protect  the  states,  it  has  been  unable  to 
defend  itself  against  the  encroachments  made  upon  it  by  the  states  ; 
every  one  of  them  has  conspired  against  it.  Virginia  as  much  as  any. 
This  fact  could  be  proved  by  reference  to  actual  history.  I  might 
quote  the  observations  of  an  able  modern  author,  not  because  he  is 
decorated  with  the  name  of  author,  but  because  his  sentiments  are 
drawn  from  human  nature,  to  prove  the  dangerous  impolicy  of  with¬ 
holding  necessary  powers  from  congress  ;  but  I  shall  not  at  this  time 
fatigue  the  house,  as  little  as  possible.  What  are  the  powers  of 
congress?  They  have  full  authority  to  recommend  what  they  please; 
this  recommendatory  power  reduces  them  to  the  condition  of  poor 
supplicants.  Consider  the  dignified  language  of  the  members  of  the 
American  congress.  May  it  please  your  high  mightiness  of  Virginia 
to  pay  your  just  proportionate  quota  of  our  national  debt :  we  humbly 
supplicate,  that  it  may  please  you  to  comply  with  your  federal  duties? 
We  implore,  we  beg  your  obedience!  Is  not  this  sir,  a  fair  represen¬ 
tation  of  the  powers  of  congress?  Their  operations  are  of  no  validi¬ 
ty  when  counteracted  by  the  states.  Their  authority  to  recommend 
is  a  mere  mockery  of  government.  But  the  amendabilityof  the  con¬ 
federation  seems  to  have  great  weight  on  the  minds  of  some  gentle¬ 
men.  To  what  point  will  the  amendments  go?  What  part  makes 
the  most  important  figure?  What  part  deserves  to  be  retained?  In  it 
one  body  has  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  ;  but  the 
want  of  efficient  powers  has  prevented  the  dangers  naturally  conse¬ 
quent  on  the  union  of  these.  Is  this  union  consistent  with  an  aug¬ 
mentation  of  their  power!  Will  you  then  amend  it  by  taking  away 
one  of  these  three  powers?  Suppose,  for  instance,  you  only  vested  it 
with  the  legislative  and  executive  powers,  without  any  control  on  the 
judiciary,  what  must  be  the  result!  Are  we  not  taught  by  reason, 
experience  and  governmental  history,  that  tyranny  is  the  natural  and 
certain  consequences  of  uniting  these  two  powers,  or  the  legislative 
and  judicial  powers,  exclusively,  in  the  same  body!  If  any  one  de¬ 
nies  it,  I  shall  pass  by  him,  as  an  infidel  not  to  be  reclaimed.  When¬ 
ever  any  two  of  these  three  powers  are  vested  in  one  single  body, 
they  must  at  one  time  or  other  terminate  in  the  destruction  of  liberty. 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


In  the  most  important  cases,  the  assent  of  nine  states  is  necessary  to 
pass  a  law  ;  this  is  too  great  a  restriction,  and  whatever  good  conse¬ 
quences  it  may,  in  some  cases,  produce,  yet  it  will  prevent  energy 
in  many  other  cases  :  it  will  prevent  energy,  which  is  most  necessa¬ 
ry  on  some  emergencies,  even  in  cases  wherein  the  existence  of  the 
community  depends  on  vigor  and  expedition.  It  is  incompatible 
with  that  secrecy,  which  is  the  life  of  execution  and  dispatch.  Did 
ever  thirty  or  forty  men  retain  a  secret?  Without  secrecy  no  gov¬ 
ernment  can  carry  on  its  operations  on  great  occasions  ;  this  is  what 
gives  that  superiority  in  action  to  the  government  of  one.  If  any 
thing  were  wanting  to  complete  this  farce,  it  would  be,  that  a  resolu¬ 
tion  of  the  assembly  of  Virginia,  and  the  other  legislatures,  should  be 
necessary  to  confirm  and  render  of  any  validity  the  congressional  acts; 
this  would  openly  discover  the  debility  of  the  general  government  to 
all  the  world.  But  in  fact  its  imbecility  is  now  nearly  the  same,  as  if 
such  acts  were  formally  requisite.  An  act  otthe  assembly  of  Virginia, 
controverting  a  resolution  of  congress, would  certainly  prevail.  I  there¬ 
fore  conclude  that  the  confederation  is  too  defective  to  deserve  cor¬ 
rection.  Let  us  take  farewell  of  it,  with  reverential  respect,  as  an 
old  benefactor.  It  is  gone,  whether  this  house  says  so,  or  not.  It  is 
gone,  sir,  by  its  own  weakness. 

I  am  afraid  I  have  tired  the  patience  of  this  house  ;  but  I  trust  you 
will  pardon  me,  as  I  was  urged  by  the  importunity  of  the  gentleman 
in  calling  for  the  reasons  of  laying  the  ground  work  of  this  plan.  It 
is  objected  by  the  honorable  gentleman  over  the  way  (Mr.  George 
Mason)  that  a  republican  government  is  impracticable  in  an  exten¬ 
sive  territory,  and  the  extent  of  the  United  States  is  urged ^as  a  reason 
for  the  rejection  of  this  constitution.  Let  us  consider  the  definition 
of  a  republican  government,  as  laid  down  by  a  man  who  is  highly  es¬ 
teemed.  Montesquieu,  so  celebrated  among  politicians,  says,  “  that 
a  republican  government  is  that  in  which  the  body,  or  only  a  part 
of  the  people,  is  possessed  of  the  supreme  power  ;  amonarchial,  that 
in  what  a  single  person  governs  by  fixed  and  established  laws  ;  a  des¬ 
potic  government,  that  in  which  a  single  person,  without  law,  and 
without  rule  directs  every  thing  by  his  own  will  and  caprice.  This 
author  has  not  distinguished  a  republican  government  from  a  mon¬ 
archy,  by  the  extent  of  its  boundaries,  but  by  the  nature  of  its  prin¬ 
ciples.  He,  in  another  place,  contradistinguishes  it,  as  a  govern¬ 
ment  of  laws,  in  opposition  to  others,  which  he  denominates  a  gov¬ 
ernment  of  men. 

The  empire  or  government  of  laws,  according  to  that  phrase,  is 
that  in  which  the  laws  are  made  with  the  free  will  of  the  people ; 
hence  then,  if  laws  be  made  by  the  assent  of  the  people,  the  govern¬ 
ment  may  be  deemed  free.  When  laws  are  made  with  integrity. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


107 


and  executed  with  wisdom,  the  question  is,  whether  a  great  extent 
of  country  will  tend  to  abridge  the  liberty  of  the  people.  If  defen¬ 
sive  force  be  necessary  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  country,  I  con¬ 
ceive  that  in  a  judiciously  constructed  government,  be  the  country 
ever  so  extensive,  its  inhabitants  will  be  proportionably  numerous 
and  able  to  defend  it.  Extent  of  country,  in  my  conception,  ought 
to  be  no  bar  for  the  adoption  of  a  good  government.  No  extent  on. 
earth  seems  to  be  too  great,  provided  the  laws  be  wisely  made,  and 
executed.  The  principles  of  representation  and  responsibility,  may 
pervade  a  large  as  well  as  small  territory  ;  and  tyranny  is  as  easi¬ 
ly  introduced  into  a  small  as  into  a  large  district.  If  it  be  answer¬ 
ed,  that  some  of  the  most  illustrious  and  distinguiseed  authors,  are 
of  a  contrary  opinion,  I  reply,  that  authority  has  no  weight  with  me 
till  I  am  convinced — that  not  the  dignity  of  names,  but  the  force  of 
reasoning,  gains  my  assent. 

I  intended  to  have  shown  the  nature  of  the  powers  which  ought 

i 

to  have  been  given  to  the  general  government,  and  the  reason  of  in¬ 
vesting  it  with  the  power  of  taxation  ;  but  this  would  require  more 
time  than  my  strength  or  the  patience  of  the  committee  would  now 
admit  of.  I  shall  conclude  with  a  few  observations  which  come  from 
m}T  heart.  I  have  labored  for  the  continuance  of  the  union — the 
rock  of  our  salvation.  I  believe,  that  as  sure  as  there  is  a  God  in 
Heaven,  our  safety,  our  political  happiness  and  existence  depend  on 
the  union  of  the  states  ;  and  that  without  this  union,  the  people  of 
this,  and  the  other  states,  will  undergo  the  unspeakable  calamities^ 
which  discord,  faction,  turbulence,  war,  and  bloodshed,  have  prodiT- 
eed  in  other  countries.  The  American  spirit  ought  to  be  mixed  with 
American  pride,  to  see  the  union  magnificiently  triumph.  Let  that 
glorious  pride,  which  once  defied  the  British  thunder,  reanimate  you 
again.  Let  it  not  be  recorded  of  Americans,  that  after  having  per¬ 
formed  the  most  gallant  exploits — after  having  overcome  the  most  as¬ 
tonishing  difficulties — and  after  having  gained  the  admiration  of  the 
world  by  their  incomparable  valor  and  policy,  they  lost  their  ac¬ 
quired  reputation,  their  national  consequence  and  happiness,  by  their 
own  indiscretion.  Let  no  future  historian  inform  posterity,  that  they 
wanted  wisdom  and  virtue  to  concur  in  any  regular  efficient  govern¬ 
ment.  Should  any  writer,  doomed  to  so  disagreeable  a  task,  feel 
the  indignation  of  an  honest  historian,  he  would  reprehend  and  re¬ 
criminate  our  folly,  with  equal  severity  and1  justice.  Catch  the 
present  moment  — seize  it  with  avidity  and'  eagerness — for  it  may 
be  lost — never  to  be  regained.  If  the  union  be  now  lost,  I  fear  it 
will  remain  so  forever..  I  believe  gentlemen  are  sincere  in  their  op¬ 
position  and  actuated  by  pure  motives  ;  but  when  I  maturely  weigh 
the  advantages-  of  the  union,,  and,  dreadful  consequence  of  this  dis. 


103 


DEBATES. 


[Madison. 

solution,  when  I  see  safety  on  my  right,  and  destruction  on  my  left, 
when  I  behold  respectability  and  happiness  acquired  by  the  one,  but 
annihilated  by  the  other,  I  cannot  hesitate  to  decide  in  favor  of  the 
former.  I  hope  my  weakness,  from  speaking  so  long,  will  apologize 
for  my  leaving  this  subject  in  so  mutilated  a  condition.  If  a  further 
explanation  be  desired,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  enter  into  it  more 
fully  another  time. 

Mr.  MADISON  then  arose' — [but  he  spoke  so  low  that  his  exor¬ 
dium  could  not  be  heard  distinctly.]  I  shall  not  attempt  to  make 
impressions  by  any  ardent  professions  of  zeal  for  the  public  welfare  ; 
we  know  the  principles  of  every  man  will,  and  ought  to  be  judged, 
not  by  his  professions  and  declarations,  but  by  his  conduct ;  by  that 
criterion  I  mean  in  common  with  every  other  member  to  be  judged  ; 
and  should  it  prove  unfavorable  to  my  reputation ;  yet,  it  is  a  crite¬ 
rion,  from  which  I  will  by  no  mean3  depart.  Comparisons  have  been 
made  between  the  friends  of  this  constitution,  and  those  who  op¬ 
pose  it :  although  I  disapprove  of  such  comparisons,  I  trust  that,  in 
points  of  truth,  honor,  candor,  and  rectitude  of  motives,  the  friends 
of  this  system,  here,  and  in  other  states,  are  not  inferior  to  its  oppo¬ 
nents.  But,  professions  of  attachment  to  the  public  good,  and  com¬ 
parisons  of  parties,  ought  not  to  govern  or  influence  us  now.  We 
ought,  sir,  to  examine  the  constitution  on  its  own  merits  solely  :  we 
are  to  enquire  whether  it  will  promote  the  public  happiness  :  its 
aptitude  to'produce  this  desirable  object,  ought  to  be  the  exclusive 
subject  of  our  present  researches.  In  this  pursuit,  we  ought  not  to 
address  our  arguments  to  the  feelings  and  passions,  but  to  those  un¬ 
derstandings  and  judgments  which  were  selected  by  the  people  ot 
this  country,  to  decide  this  great  questfcon,  by  a  calm  and  rational 
investigation.  I  hope  that  gentlemen,  in  displaying  their  abilities, 
on  this  occasion,  instead  of  giving  opinions,  and  making  assertions, 
will  condescend  to  prove  and  demonstrate,  by  a  fair  and  regular  dis 
eussion.  It  gives  me  pain  to  hear  gentlemen  continually  distorting 
the  natural  construction  of  language  ;  for  it  is  sufficient  if  any  hu¬ 
man  production  can  stand  a  fair  discussion.  Before  I  proceed  to 
make  some  additions  to  the  reasons  which  have  been  adduced  by 
my  honorable  friend  over  the  way,  I  must  take  the  liberty  to  make 
some  observations  on  what  was  said  by  another  gentleman,  (Mr. 
Henry.)  He  told  us,  that  this  constitution  ought  to  be  rejected,  be¬ 
cause  it  endangered  the  public  liberty,  in  his  opinion,  in  many  in¬ 
stances.  Give  me  leave  to  make  one  answer  to  that  observation, 
let  the  dangers  which  this  system  is  supposed  to  be  replete  with,  be 
clearly  pointed  out ;  if  any  dangerous  and  unnecessary  powers  be  giv¬ 
en  to  the  general  legislature,  let  them  be  plainly  demonstrated,  and 
pet  us  not  rest  satisfied  with  general  assertions  of  dangers,  without  ex- 


Madison,] 


VIRGINIA. 


109 


animation.  If  powers  be  necessary,  apparent  danger  is  not  a  sufficient 
reason  against  conceding  them.  He  has  suggested,  that  licentious¬ 
ness,  has  seldom  produced  the  loss  of  liberty  ;  but  that  the  tyranny 
of  rulers  has  almost  always  effected  it.  Since  the  general  civiliza¬ 
tion  of  mankind,  I  believe  there  are  more  instances  of  the  abridg¬ 
ment  of  the  freedom  of  the  people,  by  gradual  and  silent  encroach¬ 
ments  of  those  in  power,  than  by  violent  and  sudden  usurpations  ; 
but,  on  a  candid  examination  of  history,  we  shall  find  that  turbu¬ 
lence,  violence,  and  abuse  of  power,  by  the  majority  trampling  on 
the  rights  of  the  minority  have  produced  factions  and  commotions, 
which,  in  republics,  have  more  frequently  than  any  other  cause,  pro¬ 
duced  despotism.  If  we  go  over  the  whole  history  of  ancient  and 
modern  republics,  we  shall  find  their  destruction  to  have  generally 
resulted  from  those  causes.  If  we  consider  the  peculiar  situation  of 
the  United  States,  and  what  are  the  sources  of  that  diversity  of  sen¬ 
timent  which  pervades  its  inhabitants,  we  shall  find  great  danger 
to  fear,  that  the  same  causes  may  terminate  here,  in  the  same  fatal 
effects,  which  they  produced  in  those  republics.  This  danger  ought 
to  be  wisely  guarded  against.  Perhaps,  in  the  progress  of  this  dis¬ 
cussion,  it  will  appear,  that  the  only  possible  remedy  for  those  evils 
and  means  of  preserving  and  protecting  the  principles  of  republic¬ 
anism,  will  be  found  in  that  very  system  which  is  now  exclaimed 
against  as  the  parent  of  oppression. 

I  must  confess,  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  his  usual  consistency, 
in  the  gentleman’s  argument  on  this  occasion :  he  informs  us  that 
the  people  of  the  country  are  at  perfect  repose,  that  is  every  man 
enjoys  the  fruits  of  his  labor,  peaceably  and  securely,  and  that  ev¬ 
ery  thing  is  in  perfect  tranquility  and  safety.  I  wish  sincerely, 
sir,  this  were  true.  If  this  be  their  happy  situation,  why  has  every 
state  acknowledged  the  contrary Why  were  deputies  from  all  the 
states  sent  to  the  general  convention'?  Why  have  complaints  of  na¬ 
tional  and  individual  distresses  been  eoched  and  re-eoched  through¬ 
out  the  continent?  Why  has  our  general  government  been  so  shame¬ 
fully  disgraced,  and  our  constitution  violated?  Wherefore  has  laws 
been  made  to  authorize  a  change,  and  wherefore  are  we  now  assem¬ 
bled  here?  A  federal  government  is  formed  for  the  protection  of 
its  individual  members.  Ours  has  attacked  itself  with  impunity. 
Its  authority  has  been  disobeyed  and  despised.  I  think  I  perceive 
a  glaring  inconsistency  in  another  of  his  arguments.  He  complains 
of  this  constitution,  because  it  requires  the  consent  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  to  introduce  amendments  which  shall  be  ne¬ 
cessary  for  the  happiness  of  the  people.  Tho  assent  of  so  many, 
he  urges  as  too  great  an  obstacle,  to  the  admission  of  salutary 
amendments,  which  he  strongly  insists,  ought  to  be  at  tho  will  of 


no 


DEBATES. 


[Madison. 


a  bare  majority — we  hear  this  argument,  at  the  very  moment  we 
are  called  upon  to  assign  reasons  for  proposing  a  constitution,  which 
puts  it  in  the  power  of  nine  states  to  abolish  the  present  inade¬ 
quate,  unsafe,  and  pernicious  confederation!  In  the  first  case,  he 
asserts,  that  a  majority  ought  to  have  the  power  of  altering  the  go¬ 
vernment,  when  found  to  be  inadequate  to  the  security  of  public 
happiness. 

In  the  last  case,  he  affirms  that  even  three-fourths  of  the  commu¬ 
nity  have  not  a  right  to  alter  a  government,  which  experience  has 
proved  to  be  subversive  of  national  felicity!  Nay,  that  the  most  ne¬ 
cessary  and  urgent  alterations,  cannot  be  made  without  the  abso¬ 
lute  unanimity  of  all  the  states.  Does  not  the  thirteenth  article  of 
the  confederation  expressly  require,  that  no  alteration  shall  be  made 
without  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  states'?  Could  any  thing 
in  theory,  be  more  perniciously  improvident  and  injudicious,  than 
this  submission  of  the  will  of  the  majority  to  the  most  trifling  mi¬ 
nority?  Have  not  experience  and  practice  actually  manifested  this 
theoretical  inconvenience  to  be  extremely  impolitic?  Let  me  men¬ 
tion  one  fact,  which  1  conceive  must  carry  conviction  to  the  mind  of 
any  one — the  smallest  state  in  the  union  has  obstructed  every  at¬ 
tempt  to  reform  the  government — that  like  member  has  repeatedly 
disobeyed  end  counteracted  the  general  authority;  nay,  has  even 
supplied  the  enemies  of  its  country  with  provisions.  Twelveetates 
had  agreed  to  certain  improvements  which  were  proposed,  being 
thought  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve  the  existence  of  the  gene¬ 
ral  government:  but  as  these  improvements,  though  really  indis¬ 
pensable,  could  not  by  the  confederation  be  introduced  into  it  with¬ 
out  the  consent  of,  every  state,  the  refractory  dissent  of  that  little 
state  prevented  their  adoption.  The  inconveniences  resulting  from 
this  requisition,  of  unanimous  concurrence  in  alterations  in  the  con¬ 
federation,  must  be  known  to  every  member  in  this  convention,  it  is 
therefore  needless  to  remind  them  of  them.  Is  it  not  self-evident, 
that  a  trifling  minority  ought  not  to  bind  the  majority?  Would  not 
foreign  influence  be  exerted  with  facility  over  a  small  minority? 
Would  the  h  onorable  gentleman  agree  to  continue  the  mo3t  radical 
defects  inf  he  old  system,  because  the  petty  state  of  Rhode  Island 
would  not  agree  to  remove  them. 

He  next  objects  to  the  exclusive  legislation  over  the  district  \vhere 
?the  seat  of  government  may  be  fixed.  Would 'he  submit  that  the 
representatives  of  this  state  should  carry  on  their  deliberations  un¬ 
der  the  control  of  any  one  member  of  the  union?  If  any  state  had 
the  power  of  legislation  over  the  place  where  congress  should  fix 
the  general  government,  this  would  impair  the  dignity,  and  hazard 
•the  safety  of  congress.  If  the  safety  of  the  union  were  under  the 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


Ill 


'control  of  any  particular  state,  would  not  foreign  corruption  proba¬ 
bly  prevail  in  such  a  state,  to  induce  it  to  exert  its  controling  influ¬ 
ence  over  the  members  of  the  general  government1?  Gentlemen  can¬ 
not  have  forgotten  the  disgraceful  insult  which  congress  received 
some  years  ago.  When  we  also  reflect,  that  the  previous  cession 
of  particular  states  is  necessary,  before  congress  can  legislate  ex¬ 
clusively  any  where,  we  must,  instead  of  being  alarmed  at  this 
part,  heartily  approve  of  it. 

But,  the  honorable  member  sees  great  danger  in  the  provision 
cencerning  the  militia  :  this,  I  conceive,  to  be  an  additional  secu¬ 
rity  to  our  liberty,  without  diminishing  the  power  of  the  states, 
in  any  considerable  degree  ;  it  appears  to  me  so  highly  expedient, 
that  I  should  imagine  it  would  have  found  advocates  even  in  the 
warmest  friends  of  the  present  system  :  the  authority  of  training  the 
militia,  and  appointing  the  officers,  is  reserved  to  the  states.  Con¬ 
gress  ought  to  have  the  power  of  establishing  ari  uniform  discipline 
throughout  the  states  ;  and  to  provide  for  the  execution  of  the  laws, 
suppress  insurrections  and  repel  invasions  ;  these  are  the  only  ca¬ 
ses  wherein  they  can  interfere  with  the  militia ;  and  the  obvious  ne¬ 
cessity  of  their  having  power  over  them  in  these  cases,  must  con¬ 
vince  any  reflecting  mind.  Without  uniformity  of  discipline,  mili¬ 
tary  bodies  would  be  incapable  of  action  :  without  a  general  con¬ 
trolling  power  to  call  forth  the  strength  of  the  union,  to  repel  inva¬ 
sions,  the  country  might  be  over-run,  and  conquered  by  foreign  ene¬ 
mies.  Without  such  a  power  to  suppress  insurrections,  our  liber¬ 
ties  might  be  destroyed  by  domestic  faction,  and  domestic  tyranny 
be  established. 

The  honorable  member  then  told  us,  that  there  was  no  instance  of 
power  once  transferred,  being  voluntaiily  renounced.  Not  to  pro¬ 
duce  European  examples,  which  may  probably  be  done  before  the 
rising  of  this  convention,  have  we  not  seen  already  in  seven  states 
(and  probably  in  an  eighth  state)  legislatures  surrendering  some  of 
the  most  important  powers  they  possessed?  But,  Sir,  by  this  govern¬ 
ment,  powers  are  not  given  to  any  particular  set  of  men,  they  are 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  ;  delegated  to  their  representatives  cho¬ 
sen  for  short  terms  ;  to  representatives  responsible  to  the  people, 
and  whose  situation  is  perfectly  similar  to  their  our  own ;  as  long 
as  this  is  the  case  we  have  no  danger  to  apprehend.  When  the 
gentleman  called  our  recollection  to  the  usual  effects  of  the  conces¬ 
sion  of  powers,  and  imputed  the  loss  of  liberty  generally  to  open 
tyranny  I  wish  he  had  gone  on  farther.  Upon  his  review  of  histo¬ 
ry  he  would  have  found,  that  the  loss  of  liberty  very  often  resulted 
fiom  factions  and  divisions;  from  local  considerations,  which  eter¬ 
nally  lead  to  quarrels ,  be  would  have  found  internal  dissentions  to 


DEBATES. 


112 


[Madison. 


have  more”frequently  demolished  civil  liberty,  than  a  tenacious  dis¬ 
position  in  rulers,  to  retain  any  stipulated  powers. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  enumerated  the  various  means  whereby  na¬ 
tions  had  lost  their  liberties.] 

The  power  of  raising  and  supporting  armies  is  exclaimed  against, 
as  dangerous  and  unnecessary.  I  wish  there  were  no  necessity  of 
vesting  this  power  in  the  general  government.  But,  suppose  a 
foreign  nation  to  declare  war  against  the  United  States,  must  not 
the  general  legislature  have  the  power  of  defending  the  United 
States  1  Ought  it  to  be  known  to  foreign  nations,  that  the  general 
government  of  the  United  States  of  America  has  no  power  to  raise 
and  support  an  army,  even  in  the  utmost  danger,  when  attacked  by 
external  enemies  1  Would  not  their  knowledge  of  such  a  circum¬ 
stance  stimulate  them  to  fall  upon  us  I  If,  sir,  congress  be  not  in¬ 
vested  with  this  power,  any  powerful  nation,  prompted  by  ambition 
or  avarice,  will  be  invited,  by  our  weakness,  to  attack  us ;  and  such 
an  attack,  by  disciplined  veterans,  would  certainly  be  attended  with 
success,  when  only  opposed  by  irregular,  undisciplined  militia. 
Whoever  considers  the  peculiar  situation  of  this  country,  the  multi¬ 
plicity  of  its  excellent  inlets  and  harbours,  and  the  uncommon  facil¬ 
ity  of  attacking  it,  however  much  he  may  regiet  the  necessity  of 
such  a  power,  cannot  hesitate  a  moment  in  granting  it.  One  fact 
may  elucidate  this  argument.  In  the  course  of  the  late  war,  when 
the  weak  parts  of  the  union  were  exposed,  and  many  states  were  in 
the  most  deplorable  situation,  by  the  enemy’s  ravages,  the  assistance 
of  foreign  nations  was  thought  so  urgently  necessary  for  our  protec¬ 
tion,  that  the  relinquishment  of  territorial  advantages,  was  not 
deemed  too  great  a  sacrifice  for  the  acquisition  of  one  ally.  This 
expedient  was  admitted  with  great  reluctance,  even  by  those  states 
who  expected  advantages  from  it.  The  crisis  however  at  length 
airived  when  it  was  judged  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  this  coun¬ 
try,  to  make  certain  cessions  to  Spain;  whether  wisely,  or  otherwise, 
is  not  for  me  to  say  ;  but  the  fact  was,  that  instructions  were  sent 
to  our  representative  at  the  court  of  Spain,  to  empower  him  to  enter 
into  negotiations  for  that  purpose. — How  it  terminated  is  well 
known.  This  fact  shews  the  extremities  to  which  nations  will  go 
in  cases  of  imminent  danger,  and  demonstrates  the  necessity  of 
making  ourselves  more  respectable,.  The  necessity  of  making 
dangerous  cessions,  and  of  applying  to  foreign  aid,  ought  to  be  ex¬ 
cluded. 

The  honorable  member  then  told  us,  that  there  are  heart-burnings 
in  the  adopting  states,  and  that  Virginia  may,  if  she  does  not  como 
into  the  measure,  continue  in  amicable  confederacy  with  the  adopt*, 
ting  states.  I  wish  as  seldom  as  possible  to  contradict  the  assertions 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


113 


of  gentlemen,  but  I  can  venture  to  affirm,  without  danger  of  being  in 
an  error,  that  there  is  the  most  satisfactory  evidence,  that  the  satis¬ 
faction  of  those  states  is  increasing  every  day,  and  that,  in  that  state, 
where  it  was  adopted  only  by  a  majority  of  nineteen,  there  is  not 
one-fifth  of  the  people  dissatisfied.  There  are  some  reasons  which 
induce  us  to  conclude,  that  the  grounds  of  proselytism  extend  every 
where  ;  its  principles  begin  to  be  better  understood  ;  and  the  inflam¬ 
matory  violence,  wherewith  it  was  opposed  by  designing,  illiberal, 
and  unthinking  minds,  begins  to  subside.  I  will  not  enumerate  the 
causes  from  which,  in  my  conception,  the  heart-burnings  of  a  major- 
it}r  of  its  opposers  have  originated.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  in  all  they 
were  founded  on  a  misconception  of  its  nature  and  tendency.  Had 
it  been  candidly  examined  and  fairly-  discussed,  I  believe,  sir,  that 
but  a  very  inconsiderable  minority  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  would  have  opposed  it.  With  respect  to  the  Swiss,  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  lias  proposed  for  our  example,  as  far  as 
historical  authority  may  be  relied  on,  we  shall  find  their, government 
quite  unworthy  of  our  imitation.  I  am  sure  if  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  had  adverted  to  their  history  and  government,  he  never  would 
have  quoted  their  example  here;  he  would  have  found  that  instead 
of  respecting  their  rights  of  mankind,  their  government  (at  least 
of  several  of  their  cantons)  is  one  of  the  vilest  aristocracies  that 
ever  was  instituted  :  the  peasants  of  some  of  their  cantons  are  more 
oppressed  and  degraded  than  the  subjects  ofany  monarch  in  Europe: 
nay,  almost  as  much  so,  as  those  of  any  eastern  despot.  It  is  a 
novelty  in  politics,  that  from  the  worst  of  systems  the  happiest  con, 
sequences  should  ensue.  Their  aristocratical  rigor,  and  the  peculi¬ 
arity  of  their  situation,  have  so  long  supported  their  union:  without 
the  closest  alliance  and  amity,  dismemberment  might  follow,  their 
powerful  and  ambitious  neighbors  would  immediately  avail  them¬ 
selves  of  their  least  jarrings.  As  we  are  not  circumstanced  like 
them,  no  conclusive  precedent  can  be  drawn  from  their  situation.  ? 
trust,  the  gentleman  does  not  carry  his  idea  so  far  as  to  recommend 
•a  separation  from  the  adopting  states.  This  government  may  secure 
our  happiness  ;  this  is  at  least  as  probable,  as  that  it  shall  be  op¬ 
pressive.  If  eight  states  have,  from  a  persuasion  of  its  policy  and 
utility,  adopted  it,  shall  Virginia  shrink  from  it,  without  a  full  con¬ 
viction  of  its  danger  and  inutility?  I  hope  she  will  never  shrink 
from  any  duty:  I  trust  she  will  not  determine  without  the  most 
serious  reflection  and  deliberation. 

1  confess  to  you,  sir,  were  uniformity  of  religion  to  be  introduced 
by  this  system,  it  would,  in  rny  opini  m,  be  ineligible;  but  I  have 
no  reason  to  conclude,  that  uniformity  of  government  will  produce 
that  ol  religion.  This  subject  is,  for  the  honor  of  America,  perfectly 
von,  3.  8 


DEBATES. 


1  n 


[Madison. 


free  and  unshackled.  The  government  has  no  jurisdiction  over  it— 
the  least  reflection  will  convince  us,  there  is  no  danger  to  be  feared 
An  this  ground. 

But  we  are  flattered  with  the  probability  of  obtaining  previous 
amendments.  This  calls  for  the  most  serious  attention  of  this  house. 
If  amendments  are  to  be  proposed  by  one  state,  other  states  have 
the  same  right,  and  will  also  propose  alterations.  These  cannot  but 
be  dissimilar,  and  opposite  in  their  nature.  I  beg  leave  to  remark, 
that  the  governments  of  the  different  states,  are  in  many  respects 
dissimilar,  in  their  structure;  their  legislative  bodies  are  not  similar 
— their  executive  are  more  different.  In  several  of  the  states  the 
first  magistrate  is  elected  by  the  people  at  large — in  others,  by  joint 
ballot  of  the  members  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature — and  in 
others,  in  other  different  manners.  This  dissimilarity  has  occasioned 
a  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  theory  of  government,  which  will,  with¬ 
out  many  reciprocal  concessions,  render  a  concurrence  impossible. 
Although  the  appointment  of  an  executive  magistrate,  has  not  been 
thought  destructive  to  the  principles  of  democracy  in  many  of  the 
states,  yet,  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  we  find  objections  made  to 
the  federal  executive  :  it  is  urged  that  the  president  will  degenerate 
into  a  tyrant.  I  intended,  in  compliance  with  the  call  of  the  honor¬ 
able  member,  to  explain  the  reasons  of  proposing  this  constitution, 
and  develope  its  principles  ;  but  I  shall  postpone  my  remarks,  till 
we  hear  the  supplement  which  he  has  informed  us,  he  intends  to  add 
to  what  he  has  already  said. 

Give  me  leave- to  say  something  of  the  nature  of  the  government, 
and  to  show  that  it  is  safe  and  just  to  vest  it  with  the  power  of  tax¬ 
ation.  There  are  a  number  of  opinions  ;  but  the  principal  question 
is,  whether  it  be  a  federal  or  consolidated  government:  in  order  to 
judge  properly  of  the  question  before  us,  we  must  consider  it  mi¬ 
nutely  in  its  principal  parts.  I  conceive  myself  that  it  is  of  a  mixed 
nature  ;  it  is  in  a  manner  unprecedented  ;  we  cannot  find  one  ex¬ 
press  example  in  the  experience  of  the  world.  It  stands  by  itself. 
In  some  respeots  it  is  a  government  of  a  federal  nature ;  in  others  it 
is  of  a  consolidated  nature.  Even  if  we  attend  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  constitution  is  investigated,  ratified  and  made  the  act 
of  the  people  of  America,  I  can  say,  notwithstanding  what  the  ho¬ 
norable  gentleman  has  alleged,  that  this  government  is  not  com¬ 
pletely  consolidated,  nor  is  it  entirely  federal.  Who  are  parties  to 
it!  The  people — but  not  the  people  as  composing  one  great  body  ; 
but  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sovereignties  :  "were  it  as  the 
gentleman  asserts,  a  consolidated  government,  the  assent  of  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  people  would  be  sufficient  for  its  establishment,  and  as 
a  majority,  have  adopted  it  already,  the  remaining  states  would  be 


VIRGINIA. 


Madison  f] 


1T5 


bound  by  the  act  of  the  majority,  even  if  they  unanimously  repro¬ 
bated  it:  were  it  such  a  government  as  it  is  suggested,  it  would  he 
now  binding  on  the  people  of  this  state,  without  having  had  the 
privilege  of  deliberating  upon  it;  but,  sir,  no  state  is  bound  by  it, 
as  it  is,  without  its  own  consent.  Should  all  the  states  adopt  it,  it 
will  be  'then  a  government  established  by  the  thirteen  states  of 
America,  not  through  the  intervention  of  the  legislatures,  but  by  the 
people  at  large.  In  this  particular  respect  the  distinction  between 
the  existing  and  proposed  governments  is  very  material.  The  exis¬ 
ting  system  has  been  derived  from  the  dependent  derivative  author¬ 
ity  of  the  legislatures  of  -the  states  ,  whereas  this  is  derived  from 
the  superior  power  of  the  people.  If  we  look  at  the  manner  in 
which  alterations  are  to  be  made  in  it,  the  same  idea  is  in  some  de¬ 
gree  attended  to.  By  the  new  system  a  majority  of  the  states  can¬ 
not  introduce  amendments ;  nor  are  all  the  states  required  for  that 
purpose  ;  three-fourths  of  them  must  concur  in  alterations  :  in  this 
there  is  a  departure  from  the  federal  idea.  The  members  to  the 
national  house  of  representatives  are  to  be  chosen  by  the  people  at 
large,  in  proportion  to  the  rnumbers  in  the  respective  districts. 
When  we  come  to  the  senate,  its  members  are  elected  by  the  states 
in  their  equal  and  political  capacity  ;  but  had  the  government  been 
completely  consolidated,  the  senate  would  have  been  chosen  by  the 
people  in  their  individual  capacity,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  other  house.  Thus  it  is  of  a>  complicated  nature,  and 
this  complication,  I  trust,  will  be  found  to  exclude  the  evils  of  abso¬ 
lute  consolidation,  as  .well  as  of  a  mere  confederacy.  If  Virginia 
was  separated  from  all  the  states,  her  power  and  authority  would 
extend  to  all  cases  :  in  like  manner  were  all  powers  vested  in  the 
general  government,  it  would  be  a  consolidated  government;  but 
the  powers  of  the  federal  government  are  enumerated  ;  it  can  only 
operate  in  certain  cases  ;  it  has  legislative  powers  on  defined  and 
limited  objects,  beyond  which  it  cannot  extend  its  jurisdiction. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  satirised  with  peculiar  acrimony, 
the  powers  given  to  the  general  government,  by  this  constitution. 
I  conceive  that  the  first  question  on  this  subject  is,  whether  these 
powers  be  necessary  ;  if  they  be,  we  are  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of 
either  submitting  to  the  inconvenience,  or  losing  the  union.  Let  us 
.consider  the  most  important  of  these  .reprobated  powers  ;  that  of  di¬ 
rect  taxation  is  most  generally  objected  to.  With  'respect  to  the 
exigencies  of  government,  there  is  no  question  but  the  most  easy 
mode  ol  pro  viding.for  them  will  be  adopted.  When,  therefore,  di¬ 
rect  taxes  aie  not  necessary,  they  will  not  be  recurred  to.  It  can 
he  of  little  advantage  to  those  in  power,  to  .raise  money,  in  a  man¬ 
ner  oppressive  to  the  people.  To  cousult  the  conveniences  of  the 


116 


DEBATES. 


[Madison* 


people,  will  cost  them  nothing,  and  in  many  respects  will  be  ad¬ 
vantageous  to  them.  Direct  taxes  will  only  be  recurred  to  for  great 
purposes.  What  has  brought  on  other  nations  those  immense 
debts,  under  the  pressure  of  which  many  of  them  labor!  Not  the 
expenses  of  their  governments,  but  war.  If  this  country  should  be 
engaged  in  war,  and  I  conceive  we  ought  to  provide  for  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  such  a  case,  how  would  it  be  carried  on!  By  the  usual 
means  provided  from  year  to  year!  As  our  imports  will  be  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  expenses  of  government  and  other  common  exigencies, 
how  are  we  to  carry  on  the  means  of  defence!  How  is  it  possible 
a  war  could  be  supported  without  money  or  credit!  And  wrould  it 
be  possible  for  a  government  to  have  credit  without  having  the  pow¬ 
er  of  raising  money!  No,  it  wohld  be  impossible  for  any  govern¬ 
ment,  in  such  a  case,  to  defend  itself.  Then,  1  say,  sir,  that  it  is 
necessary  to  establish  funds  for  extraordinary  exigencies,  and  give 
this  power  to  the  general  government — for  the  utter  inutility  of  pre¬ 
vious  requisitions  on  the  states  is  too  well  known.  Would  it  be 
possible  for  those  countries,  whose  finances  and  revenues  are  car¬ 
ried  to  the  highest  perfection,  to  carry  on  the  operations  of  Govern¬ 
ment  on  great  emergencies,  such  as  the  maintenance  of  a  war,  with¬ 
out  an  uncontrolled  power  of  raising  money!  Has  it  not  been  ne¬ 
cessary  for  Great  Britain,  notwithstanding  the  facility  of  the  collec¬ 
tion  of  her  taxes,  to  have  recourse  very  often  to  this  and  other  ex¬ 
traordinary  methods  of  procuring  money!  Would  not  her  public 
credit  have  been  ruined,  if  it  was  known  that  her  power  to  raise  mo¬ 
ney  was  limited!  Has  not  France  been  obliged,  on  great  occa¬ 
sions,  to  use  unusual  means  to  raise  funds!  It  has  been  the  case 
in  many  countries,  and  no  government  can  exist,  unless  its  powers 
extend  to  make  provisions  for  every  contingency.  If  we  were  ac¬ 
tually  attacked  by  a  powerful  nation,  and  our  general  government 
had  not  the  power  of  raising  money,  but  depended  solely  on  requi¬ 
sitions,  our  condition  would  be  truly  deplorable— if  the  revenue  of 
this  commonwealth  were  to  depend  on  twenty  distinct  authorities, 
it  would  be  impossible  for  it  to  carry  on  its  operations.  This  must, 
be  obvious  to  every  member  here  :  I  think  therefore,  that  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  preservation  of  the  union,  that  this  power  shall  be  given 
to  the  general  government. 

But  it  is  urged,  that  its  consolidated  nature,  joined  to  the  power 

of  direct  taxation,  will  give  it  a  tendency  to  destroy  all  subordinate' 
authority  ;  that  its  increasing  influence  will  speedily  enable  it  to  ab¬ 
sorb  the  state  governments.  I  cannot  think  this  will  be  the  case. 
If  the  general  government  were  wholly  independent  of  the  go¬ 
vernments  ot  the  particular  states,  then  indeed,  usurpation  might 
be  exp tu  *  to  the  fullest  extent:  but,  sir,  on  whom  does  this  rrene- 

O 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


117 

?ral  government  depend?  It  derives  its  authority  from  these  govern- 
.ments,  and  from  the  same  sources  from  which  their  authority  is  de¬ 
rived.  The  members  of  the  federal  government  are  taken  from  the 
same  men  from  whom  those  of  the  state  legislatures  are  taken.  If 
we  consider  the  mode  in  which  the  federal  representatives  will  be 
chosen,  wre  shall  be  convinced,  that  the  general,  will  never  destroy 
the  individual,  governments  ;  and  this  conviction  must  be  strength¬ 
ened  by  an  attention  to  the  construction  of  the  senate.  The  repre¬ 
sentatives  will  be  chosen  probably  under  the  influence  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  state  legislatures  :  but  there  is  not  the  least  probability 
that  the  election  of  the  latter  will  be  influenced  by  the  former.  One 
hundred  and  sixty  members  represent  this  commonwealth  in  one 
branch  of  the  legislature,  are  drawn  from  the  people  at  large,  and 
must  ever  possess  more  influence  than  the  few  men  who  will  be 
elected  to  the  general  legislature. 

The  reasons  offered  on  this  subject,  by  a  gentleman  on  the  same 
side  (Mr.  Nicholas)  were  unanswerable,  and  have  been  so  full,  that 
I  shall  add  but  little  more  on  the  subject.  Those  who  wish  to  be¬ 
come  federal  representative^,  must  depend  on  their  credit  with  that 
class  of  men  who  will  be  the  rncfst  popular  in  their  counties,  who 
generally  represent  the  people  in  the  state  governments  ;  they  can, 
therefore,  never  succeed  in  any  measure  contrary  to  the  wishes  of 
those  on  whom  they  depend.  It  is  almost  certain,  therefore,  that  the 
deliberations  of  the  members  of  the  federal  house  of  representatives, 
will  be  directed  to  the  interest  of  the  people  of  America.  As  to  the 
other  branch,  the  senators  will  be  appointed  by  the  legislatures,  and 
though  elected  for  six  years,  I  do  not  conceive  they  will  so  soon  for¬ 
get  the  source  from  whence  they  derive  their  political  existence.  This 
election  of  one  branch  of  the  federal, by  the  state  legislatures,  secures., 
an  absolute  dependence  of  the  former  on  the  latter.  The  biennial  ex¬ 
clusion  of  one  third,  will  lessen  the  facility  of  a  combination,  and 
may  put  a  stop  to  intrigues.  I  appeal  to  our  past  experience,  wheth¬ 
er  they  will  attend  to  the  interests  of  their  constituent  states.  Have 
not  those  gentlemen  wTho  have  been  honored  with  seats  in  congress, 
often  signalized  themselves  by  their  attachment  to  their  seats?  I  wish 
this  government  may  answer  the  expectation  of  its  friends,  and  foil 
the  apprehension  of  its  enemies.  I  hope  the  patriotism  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  will  continue,  and  be  a  sufficient  guard  to  their  liberties.  I  be¬ 
lieve  its  tendency  will  be,  that  the  state  governments  will  counter¬ 
act  the  general  interest,  and  ultimately  prevail.  The  number  of  the 
representatives  is  yet  sufficient  for  our  safety,  and  will  gradually  in*- 
crease — and  if  we  consider  their  different  sources  of  information,  the 
number  will  not  appear  too  small. 


4 


118  DEBATES.  [Nicholas... 

Mr.  NICHOLAS. — Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  resolution  taken  by  the 
house  of  going  regularly  through  the  system,  clause  by  clause,  had 
been  followed,  I  should  confine  myself  to  one  particular  paragraph  ; 
but  as,  to  my  surprise,  the  debates  have  taken  a  different  turn,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  go  through  the  principal  parts  of  the  argument  made  use 
of,  by  the  gentlemen  in  opposition  to  the  proposed  plan  of  govern¬ 
ment.  The  worthy  gentleman  entertained  us  very  largely  on  the  im¬ 
propriety  and  dangers  of  the  powers  given  by  this  plan  to  the  gene¬ 
ral  government;  but  this  argument  appears  to  me  inconclusive  and  in¬ 
accurate  ;  it  amounts  to  this,  that  the  powers  given  to  any  govern¬ 
ment  ought  to  be  small.  I  believe  this,  sir,  is  a  new  idea  in  politics’ 
— powers  being  given  for  some  certain  purpose,  ought  to  be  propor¬ 
tionate  to  that  purpose,  or  else  the  end  for  which  they  are  delegated, 
will  not  be  answered.  It  is  necessary  to  give  powers  to  a  certain  ex¬ 
tent,  to  any  government.  If  a  due  medium  be  not  observed'  in  the 
delegation  of  such  powers,  one  of  two  things  must  happen  :  if  they 
be  too  small,  the  government  must  moulder  and  decay  away  ;  if  too  ex¬ 
tensive,  the  people  must  be  oppressed.  As  there  can  be  no  liberty 
without  government,  it  must  be  as  dangerous  to  make  powers  too 
limited,  as  too  great.  He  tells  us,  that  the  constitution  annihilates 
the  confederation.  Did  he  not  prove,  that  every  people  had  a  right  to 
change  their  government,  when  it  should  be  deemed  inadequate  to 
their  happiness?  The  confederation  being  found  utterly  defective, 
will  he  deny  our  right  to  alter  or  abolish  it?  But  he  objects  to  the 
expression  “  We  the  people,”  and  demands  the  reason,  why  they 
had  not  said  “  We  the  United  States  of  America?  In  my  opinion 
the  expression  is  highly  proper:  it  is  submitted  to  the  people,  because' 
on  them  it  is  to  operate — till  adopted,  it  is  but  a  dead  letter,  and  not 
binding  on  any  one  ;  when  adopted,  it  becomes  binding  on  the  peo¬ 
ple  who  adopt  it.  It  is  proper  on  another  account.  We  are  under 
great  obligations  to  the  federal  convention,  for  recurring  to  the  peo¬ 
ple,  the  source  of  all  power.  The  gentleman’s  argument  militates 
against  himself :  he  says,  that  persons  in  power  never  relinquish 
their  powers  willingly.  If  then  the  state  legislatures  would  not  re¬ 
linquish  part  of  the  powers  they  now  possess,  to  enable  a  general  go- 
vernmentto  support  the  union,  reference  to  the  people  is  necessary. 

We  are  in  the  next  place  frightened'  by  two  sets  of  collectors,  who 
lie  tells  us,  will  oppress  us  with  impunity.  The  amount  of  the  sums 
to  be  raised  of  the  people  is  the  same,  whether  the  state  legislatures 
lay  the  taxes  for  themselves,  or  for  the  general  government ;  wheth¬ 
er  each  of  them  lays  and  collects  taxes  for  its  own  exclusive  purpo¬ 
ses,  the  manner  of  raising  it  is  only  different.  So  far  as  the  amount 
of  the  imposts  may  exceed  that  of  the  present  collections,  so  much 
will  the  burdens  of  the  people  be  less..  Money  cannot  be  raised  ina 


119 


Nicholas.]  VIRGINIA. 

more  judicious  manner,  than  by  imposts  ;  it.  is  not  felt  by  the  people 
— it  is  a  mode  which  is  practised  by  many  nations  :  nine-tenths  of 
the  revenues  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  are  raised  by  indirect  taxes; 
and  were  they  raised  by  direct  taxes,  they  would  be  exceedingly 
oppressive.  At  present,  the  reverse  of  this  proposition  holds  in 
this  country  ;  for  very  little  is  raised  by  indirect  taxes. 

The  public  treasuries  are  supplied  by  means  of  direct  taxes, 
which  are  not  so  easy  for  the  people.  But  the  people  will  be  bene¬ 
fited  by  this  change.  Suppose  the  imposts  will  only  operate  a  re¬ 
duction  of  one-fifth  of  the  public  burdens  ;  then,  sir,  out  of  every  ten 
shillings  we  have  now  to  pay,  we  shall  only  have  to  pay  eight  shil¬ 
lings,  and  suppose  this  to  be  apportioned  so  that  we  pay  four  shil¬ 
lings  to  the  federal,  and  four  shillings  to  the  state  collector,  what  in¬ 
convenience  or  oppression  can  atise  from  if?  Would  this  be  as  op¬ 
pressive  as  the  payment  of  ten  shillings  to  the  state  collector'?  Our 
constituents  do  not  suspect  our  delegates  to  the  state  legislature,  but 
we  suspect  the  members  of  the  future  congress. 

But,  sir,  they  tell  us  this  power  of  direct  taxation  ought  not  to  be 
entrusted  to  the  general  government,  because  its  members  cannot  be 
acquainted  with  the  local  situation  of  the  people  ;  where  do  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  state  legislatures  get  their  information'?  It  is  by  their  own 
experience,  and  intercourse  with  the  people.  Cannot  those  of  the 
general  government  derive  information  from  every  source  from  which 
the  state  representatives  get  theirs,  so  as  to  enable  them  to  impose 
taxes  judiciously'?  We  have  the  best  security  we  can  wish  for :  if 
they  impose  taxes  on  the  people,  which  are  oppressive,  they  subject 
themselves  and  their  friends  to  the  same  inconvenience,  and  to  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  never  being  Confided  in  again.  And  what  will  be  the  con¬ 
sequence  of  laying  taxes  on  improper  objects?  Will  the  funds  be 
increased  by  it?  By  no  means  :  I  may  venture  to  say,  the  amount  of 
the  taxes  will  diminish  in  proportion  to  the  difficulty  and  improprie¬ 
ty  of  the  mode  of  levying  them.  What  advantages  then  would  it  be 
to  the  members  of  congress,  to  render  the  collection  of  taxes  oppres¬ 
sive  to  the  people?  They  would  be  certainly  out  of  their  senses  to 
oppress  the  people  without  any  prospect  of  emolument  to  themselves. 

But  another  objection  is  made,  which  I  never  heard  of  before.— - 
The  gentleman  has  told  us,  that  the  number  of  representatives  may 
be  reduced  to  one  for  every  state.  Is  this  a  just  surmise,  even  sup¬ 
pose  it  to  have  only  said,  that  the  number  should  not  exceed  one 
for  every  30,000?  Had  it  stopped  there,  any  state,  by  his  doctrine 
might  have  no  representative  at  all.  Is  it  possible,  that  this  inter¬ 
pretation  could  ever  be  thought  of?  For  the  worthy  gentleman  al¬ 
lowed  it  was  not  a  natural  construction.  But,  the  constitution  says, 
that  representation  and  taxation  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  num- 


120 


DEBATES, 


[Nicholas* 


ber  of  the  people,  and  that  each  state  should  have  at  least  one  repre¬ 
sentative.  What  will  be  the  consequence  of  this  1  Each  state  must 
pay  its  proportion  of  taxes  ;  and  its  representation  is  to  be  equal  to 
its  taxes.  I  ask  gentlemen  if  this  be  not  a  safe  mode  of  representa¬ 
tion.  The  gentleman  then  told  us,  the  representatives  would  never 
wish  their  number  to  be  increased.  But,  sir,  the  increase  of  their 
number,  will  increase  iheir  importance  ;  how  will  it  affect  their 
interest  in  elections  1  The  greater  their  number,  the  greater  their 
chance  of  re-election.  It  is  a  natural  supposition,  that  every  cne 
of  them  will  have  the  greatest  interests  with  the  people,  in  that  part 
of  his  district  where  he  resides;  the  more  their  number,  the  more 
districts  w ill  there  be,  and  the  greater  certainty  of  their  being  re¬ 
elected,  as  it  -will  be  easier  for  them  to  have  influence  in  small,  than 
in  large  districts.  But  this  power  of  direct  taxes  is  not  to  be  got 
over;  the  gentleman  will  try  every  thing  in  alternative.  What 
will  be  the  consequence  of  these  alternatives  1  ft  will  lead  congress 
to  have  a  contest  with  particular  states  ;  after  refusal  and  opposicion 
what  is  to  be  done  ?  Must  force  be  used  for  the  purpose  1  How  is  it 
to  be  procured  1  It  would,  in  a  little  time,  expend  more  money  than 
the  sum  which  it  was  intended  to  procure,  and  the  fatal  consequence 
of  such  a  scheme,  provided  it  were  practicable,  are  self  evident.  I 
am  astonished  that  gentlemen  should  wish  to  put  it  on  this  footing; 
for  the  consequences  would  assuredly  be,  in  the  first  place,  a  disap¬ 
pointment  to  congress.  Would  this  previous  alternative  diminish, 
or  retrench  the  powers  of  congress,  if  ultimately  they  are  to  have 
recourse  to  this  power  1  One  thing  will  he  the  certain  consequence  ; 
congress,  in  making  requisitions,  must  reckon  on  a  disappointment, 
and  will  therefore  increase  them  according  to  the  expeeted  disap¬ 
pointment:  by  these  means,  the  burdens  of  the  people  must  be  en¬ 
larged.  He  then  wonders  that  gentlemen  cculd  come  to  so  sudden 
a  resolution  of  adopting  it;  as  to  the 'time,  it  will  require  as  much 
to  reject  as  to  adopt  it,  and  if  a  deliberate  discussion  be  the  most 
rational  mode  of  proceeding,  a  precipitate  rejection  will,  at  least, 
he  as  imprudent  as  a  sudden,  adoption.  He  declares,  that  he  would 
in  despite  of  an  erring  world  reject  it,  and  wishes  this  state  to 
continue  in  opposition.  Were  our  country  separated  by  nature  from 
the  other  states,  we  might  be  safe  without  the  union ;  but  as  we  are- 
bordered  on  the  adopting  states,  security  can  be  found  in  union  only. 
Consider  the  consequences  of  disunion  :  attend  to  the  situation  of 
those  citizens  who  are  contiguous  to  Maryland  ;  look  at  the  country 
called  the  Northern  Neck  ;  if  we  reject  the  constitution,  will  not  its 
inhabitants  shake  off  their  dependence  on  us  1  But,  sir,  the  worthy 
member  has  declared  as  a  reason,  for  not  changing  our  government 
that  no  terrors  had  been  experienced,  that  no  insurrections  had  hap- 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA, 


1 21 


pened  among  us.  It  was  indeed  a  wonder  that  this  was  the  ease* 
considering  the  relaxation  of  the  laws.  Tumults  have  happened  in 
other  states.  Had  it  been  attempted  here  by  an  enterprising  adven¬ 
turer,  I  believe  he  could  hardly  have  been  prevented  by  the  laws : 
for  I  believe  every  citizen  in  this  country  has  complained  of  their 
want  of  energy.  The  worthy  member  has  exclaimed,  with  uncom¬ 
mon  vehemence,  against  the  mode  provided  for  securing  amendments. 
He  thinks  amendments  can  never  be  obtained,  because  so  great  a 
number  is  required  to  concur.  Had  it  rested  solely  with  congress 
there  might  have  been  danger.  The  committee  will  see  that  there 
is  another  mode  provided,  besides  that  which  originates  with  congress. 
On  the  application  of  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several 
states,  a  convention  is  to  be  called  to  propose  amendments,  which 
shall  be  a  part  of  the  constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  legislatures 
of  three  fourths  of  the  several  states,  or  by  conventions  in  three 
fourths  thereof.  It  is  natural  to  conclude  that  these  states  who 
will  apply  for  calling  the  convention,  will  concur  in  the  ratifications 
of  the  proposed  amendments.  •  . 

There  are  strong  and  cogent  reasons  operating  on  my  mind,  that 
the  amendments,  which  shall  be  agreed  to  by  those  states,  will  be 
sooner  ratified  by  the  rest,  than  any  other  that  can  be  proposed. — 
The  conventions  which  shall  be  so  called,  will  have  their  delibera¬ 
tions  confined  to  a  few  points  ;  no  local  interest  to  divert  their  atten¬ 
tion  ;  nothing  but  the  necessary  alterations.  They  will  have  many 
advantages  over  the  last  convention.  No'  experiments  to  devise: 
the  general  and  fundamental  regulations  being  already  laid  down. 

He  makes  another  objection,  that  contrary  to  the  articles  of  our 
bill  of  rights,  we  may  be  taxed  without  our  own  consent.  That  tax¬ 
es  may  be  imposed,  although  every  member  from  A7irginia  should 
oppose  the  measure.  The  argument  is  not  accurate.  A  tax  impo¬ 
sed  on  the  people  of  this  state,  by  our  legislature,  may  be  imposed 
by  the  members  from  the  county  of  iVlbemarle,  without  being  repu¬ 
gnant  to  our  bill  of  rights  ;  because  Albemarle  is  represented,  and 
the  act  of  the  majority  is  binding  on  the  minority.  In  like  manner, 
our  privilege  of  representation  in  the  federal  government,  will  pre¬ 
vent  any  of  the  general  laws  from  being  unconstitutional,  although 
contrary  to  the  individual  opinions  of  our  representatives. 

Rut  it  is  complained,  that  they  may  suspend  our  laws.  The  sus¬ 
pension  of  the  writ  of  liabacs  corpus  is  only  to  take  place  in  cases  of 
rebellion  or  invasion  ;  This  is  necessary  in  those  cases,  in  every 
other  case,  congress  is  restrained  from  suspending  it.  In  no  other 
case  can  they  suspend  our  laws,  and  this  is  a  most  estimable  secu¬ 
rity.  But  the  influence  of  New  England,  and  the  other  northern 
states  is  dreaded,  there  are  apprehensions  of  their  combining  against 


DEBATES. 


122 


[Nicholas, 


us.  Not  to  advert  to  the  improbability  and  iliiberaiity  of  this  idea 
it  must  be  supposed,that  our  population, will  in  a  short  period,  exceed 
theirs,  as  their  country  is  well  settled,  and  we  have  very  extensive, 
uncultivated  tracts.  We  shall  soon  out-number  them  in  as  great  a 
degree  as  they  do  us  at  this  time  :  therefore  this  government,  which 
I  trust  will  last  to  the  remotest  ages,  will  be  very  shortly  in  our 
favor.  Treason  consists  in  levying  war  against  the  United  States, 
or  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort.  The 
punishment  of  this  well  defined  crime,  is  to  be  declared  by  congress, no 
oppression,  therefore  can  arise  on  this  ground.  This  security  does 
away  the  objection,  that  the  most  grievous  oppressions  might  hap¬ 
pen  under  color  of  punishing  crimes  against  the  general  government. 
The  limitation  of  the  forfeiture  to  the  life  of  the  criminal  is  also  an 
additional  privilege. 

We  are  next  told  that  there  is  wanting  in  this  government,  that 
responsibility  which  has  been  the  salvation  of  Great  Britian,  al¬ 
though  one  half  of  the  house  of  commons  purchase  their  seats.  It 
has  been  already  shewn,  that  we  have  much  greater  security  from 
our  federal  representatives,  than  the  people  in  England  can  boast. 
But  the  worthy  member  has  found  out  a  way  of  solving  our  difficul¬ 
ties.  He  tells  us,  that  we  have  nothing  to  fear,  if  separated  from 
the  adopting  states,  but  to  send  on  our  money  and  men  to  congress, 
In  that  case  can  we  receive  the  benefits  of  the  union!  If  we  fur^ 
nish  money  at  all,  it  will  be  our  proportionate  share.  The  conse¬ 
quence  will  be,  that  we  shall  pay  our  share,  without  the  privilege  of 
being  represented.  So  that  to  avoid  the  inconvenience  of  not  hav¬ 
ing  a  sufficient  number,  of  representatives,  he  would  advise  us  to 
relinquish  the  number  we  are  entitled  to,  and  have  none  at  all.  I 
believe,  sir,  there  is  a  great  and  decided  majority  of  the  people  in 
favor  of  the  system  ;  it  is  so  in  that  part  of  the  country  wherein  I 
reside.  It  is  true,  sir,  that  many  of  the  people  have  declared  against 
a  government,  which  they  w^ere  told  destroyed  the  trial  by  jury  : 
against  a  government,  sir,  which  established  a  standing  army ; 
against  a  government,  which  abridged  the  liberty  of  the  press;  against 
a  government,  which  would  tax  all  their  property  from  them;  against 
a  government,  which  infringed  the  rights  of  conscience  ;  and  against, 
a  government,  sir,  which  should  banish  them  to  France  to  be  com¬ 
mon  soldiers,  and  which  would  eventually  destroy  alL  their  rights 
and  privileges.  This,  sir,  is  the  government  of  which  they  have 
given  their  disapprobation  t  still,  sir,  a  majority  have  considered 
this  government  in  a  different  light  and  have  given  their  opproba- 
tion  of  it.  I  believe,  sir,  that  on  a  fair  and  candid  investigation 
very  few  would  oppose  it.  Those  who  think  that  the  evils  I  have 
enumerated  will  result  from  it,  exceed  me  in  one  point  of  credulity. 


Corbin.] 


VIRGINIA. 


123 

Saturday ,  the  1th  of  June ,  1788. 

[The  first  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.] 

Mr.  CORBIN. — Mr.  Chairman,  permit  me  to  make  a  few  observa¬ 
tions  on  this  great  question.  It  is  with  great  difficulty  I  prevail  on 
myself  to  enter  into  the  debate,  when  I  consider  the  great  abilities 
of  those  gentlemen  who  have  already  spoken  on  the  subject.  But 
as  I  am  urged  by  my  duty  to  my  constituents,  and  as  I  conceive  that 
the  different  manner  of  treating  the  subject,  may  make  different  im¬ 
pressions,  I  shall  offer  my  observations  with  diffident  respect,  but 
with  firmness  and  independence.  I  will  promise  my  acknowledge¬ 
ments  to  those  honorable  gentlemen,  who  were  in  the  federal  conven¬ 
tion,  for  the  able  and  satisfactory  manner  in  which 'they  discharged 
their  duty  to  their  country.  The  introductory  expression  of  “  We 
the  people,”  has  been  thought  improper  by  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man — I  expected  no  such  objection  as  this.  Ought  not  the  peopler 
sir,  to  judge  of  that  government,  whereby  they  are  to  be  ruled!  We 
are,  sir,  deliberating  on  a  question  of  great  consequence  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  America,  and  to  the  world  in  general.  We  ought,  therefore, 
to  decide  with  extreme  caution  and  circumspection  it  is  incumbent 
upon  us  to  proceed  without  prejudice  or  prepossession.  No  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  committee  entertains  a  greater  regard  than  myself  for  the 
gentleman  on  the  other  side,  who  has  placed  himself  in  the  front 
of  opposition  (Mr.  Henry.)  No  man  admires  more  than  I  do,  his 
declamatory  talents  ;  but,  I  trust,  that  neither  declamation  nor  ele¬ 
gance  of  periods,  will  mislead  the  judgment  of  any  member  here, 
and  that  nothing  but  the  force  of  reasoning  will  operate  conviction. 
He  has  asked  with  an  air  of  triumph,  whether  the  confederation  was 
not  adequate  to  the  purposes  of  the  federal  government :  permit  me  to 
say,  No.  If,  sir,  perfection  existed  in  that  system  why  was  the 
federal  convention  called!  Why  did  every  state  except  Rhode-Is- 
land,  send  deputies  to  that  convention! 

Was  it  not  from  a  persuasion  oP'its  inefficacy!  If  this  be  not  suf¬ 
ficient  to  convince  him,  let  me  call  the  recollection  of  the  honorable 
gentleman  to  other  circumstances  :  let  him  go  into  the  interior  parts 
of  the  country,  and  enquire  into  the  situation  of  the  farmers.  He 
will  be  told,  that  Tobacco,  and  other  produce,  are  miserably  lowr, 
merchandise  dear,  and  taxes  high.  Let  him  go  through  the  United 
States,  he  will  perceive  appearances  of  ruin  and  decay  every  where. 
Let  him  visit  the  sea  coast — go  to  our  ports  and  inlets.  In  those 
ports,  sir,  where  we  had  every  reason  to  see  the  fleets  of  all  nations,, 
he  will  behold  but  a  few  trifling  little  boats — he  will  every  where 
see  commerce  languish — the  disconsolate  merchant,,  with  his  arms 
folded,  ruminating  in  despair,  on  the  wretched  ruins  of  his  fortune, 
and  deploring  the  impossibility  of  retrieving  it..  The  West-Indies,, 


124 


DEBATES. 


[Corbin. 


^re  blocked  up  against  us.  Not  the  British  only,  but  other  nations, 
exclude  us  from  those  islands — our  fur  trade  gone  to  Canada — Brit¬ 
ish  centinels  within  oar  own  territories — our  posts  withheld  :  to 
these  distresses  we  may  add  the  derangement  of  our  finances.  Yet 
the  honorable  gentleman  tells  us,  they  are  not  sufficient  to  justify  so 
radical  a  change.  Does  he  know  the  consequences  of  deranged  fi¬ 
nances'?  What  confusions,  disorders,  and  even  revolutions,  have 
resulted  from  this  cause  in  many  nations?  Look  at  France  at  this 
time — that  kingdom  is  almost  convulsed— ministers  of  state,  and 
first  princes  of  the  blood,  banished — manufacturers  and  merchants 
become  bankrupt,  and  the  people  discontented  :  all  owing  to  the  de¬ 
rangement  of  their  finances. 

o 

The  honorable  gentleman  must  be  well  acquainted  with  the  debts 
due  by  the  United  States,  and  how  much  is  due  to  foreign  nations. 
Has  not  the  payment  of  these  been  shamefully  withheld?  How  long, 
•sir,  shall  we  be  able,  by  fair  promises,  to  satisfy  those  creditors? 
How  long  can  we  amuse,  by  idle  WQrds,  those  who  are  amply  pos¬ 
sessed  of  the  means  of  doing  themselves  justice?  No  part  of  the 
principal  is  paid  to  those  nations- — nor  has  even  the  interest  been 
paid  as  honorably  and  punctually  as  it  ought.  Nay,  we  were  obliged 
to  borrow  money  last  year  to  pay  the  interest.  What?  Borrow 
money  to  discharge  the  interest  of  what  was  borrowed,  and  contin¬ 
ually  augment  the  amount  of  the  public  debt!  Such  a  plan,  would 
•destroy  the  richest  country  on  earth.  What  is  to  be  done?  Com¬ 
pel  the  delinquent  state  to  pay  requisitions  to  congress?  How  are 
they  to  be  compelled?  By  the  instrumentality  of  such  a  scheme  as 
was  proposed  to  be  introduced  in  the  year  1784?*  Is  this  cruel 
mode  of  compulsion  eligible?  Is  it  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  re¬ 
publicanism?  This  savage  mode,  which  could  be  made  use  of  un¬ 
der  the  confederation,  leads  directly  to  civil  war  and  destruction. 
How  different  is  this  from  the  genius  of  the  proposed  constitution? 
By  this  proposed  plan,  the  public  money  is  to  be  collected  by  mild 
and  gentle  means  ;  by  a  peaceable  and  friendly  application  to  the 
individuals  of  the  community.  Whereas,  by  the  other  scheme,  the 
public  treasury  must  be  supplied  through  the  medium  of  the  sword, 
by  desolation  and  murder — by  the  blood  of  the  citizens.  Yet  we 
are  told  that  there  is  too  much  energy  in  this  system.  Coercion  is 
necessary  in  every  government.  Justice,  sir,  cannot  be  done  with¬ 
out  it.  It  is  more  necessary  in  federal  governments  than  any  other 
because  of  the  natural  imbecility  of  such  governments. 

The  honorable  gentleman  is  possessed  of  much  historical  knowl¬ 
edge.  I  appeal  to  that  knowledge  therefore. — Will  he  not  agree, 

*  Alluding  to  a  motion  made  in  the  house  of  delegates  in  the  year  1784,  to 
enable  congress  to  compel  the  delinquent  states  to  pay  their  l’espe  clive  quotas 
•by  means  of  an  armed  torce. 


CORBIN.] 


VIRGINIA. 


I2& 


that  there  was  a  coercive  power  in  the  federal  government  of  the 
Amphyctionics?  The  coercive  power  of  the  Amphyctionic  council 
was  so  great,  as  to  enable  it  to  punish  disobedience  and  refractory 
behaviour  in  the  most  severe  manner.  Is  there  not  an  instance  of 
its  carrying  fire  and  sword  through  the  territories,  and  levelling  to  the  * 
ground  the  towns  of  those  who  disobeyed  if?  [Here  Mr.  Corbin 
mentions  particular  instances.]  Is  there  no  coercion  in  Germanic 
body?  This  body,  though  composed  of  300  different  component 
sovereignties,  principalities  and  cities,  and  divided  into  nine  circles? 
is  controled  by  one  superintending  power,  the  emperor.  Is  there  no 
coercive  power  in  the  confederate  government  of  the  Swiss?  In  the 
alliance  between  them  and  France  there  is  a  provision,  whereby 
the  latter  is  to  interpose  and  settle  differences  that  may  arise  among 
them,  and  this  interposition  has  been  more  than  once  used.  Is  there 
none  in  Holland?  What  is  the  stadholder?  This  power  is  necessa¬ 
ry  in  all  governments  ;  a  superintending  coercive  power  is  absolute¬ 
ly  indispensable.  This  does  not  exist  under  the  present  articles  of 
confederation.  To  vest  it  with  such  a  power,  on  its  present  con¬ 
struction,  without  any  alteration,  would  be  extremely  dangerous,  and 
might  lead  to  civil  war.  Gentlemen  must,  befoie  this,  have  been 
convinced  of  the  necessity  of  an  alteration.  Our  state-vessel  has 
sprung  a  leak — we  must  embark  in  a  new  bottom  or  sink  into  per¬ 
dition.  * 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  objected  to  the  constitution,  on  the 
old  worn-out  idea,  that  a  republican  government  is  best  calculated 
for  a  small  territory.  If  a  republic,  sir,  cannot  be  accommodated  to 
an  extensive  country,  let  me  ask,  how  small  must  a  country  be  to 
suit  the  genius  of  republicanism?  In  what  particular  extent  of 
country  can  a  republican  government  exist?  If  contracted  into  as 
small  a  compass  as  you  please,  it  must  labor  under  many  disadvan¬ 
tages.  Too  small  an  extent  will  render  a  republic  weak,  vulnerable, 
and  contemptible.  Liberty,  in  such  a  petty  state,  must  be  on  a  pre¬ 
carious  footing;  its  existence  must  depend  on  the  philanthrophy 
and  good  nature  of  its  neighbors.  Too  large  an  extent,  it  is  said, 
will  produce  confusion  and  tyranny.  What  has  been  so  often  dep¬ 
recated  will  be  removed  by  this  plan.  The  extent  of  the  United 
States  cannot  render  this  government  oppressive.  The  powers  of 
the  general  government  are  only  of  a  general  nature,  and  their  ob¬ 
ject  is  to  piotect.,  defend,  and  strengthen  the  United  States  ;  but  the 
internal  administration  of  government  is  left  to  the  state  legisla¬ 
tures,  who  exclusively  retain  such  powers  as  will  give  the  states 
the  advantages  of  small  republics,  without  the  danger  commonly 
attended  on  the  weakness  of  such  governments. 

There  are  controversias  even  about  the  name  of  this  government. 


1126  DEBATES.  [Oorbijj. 

It  is  denominated  by  some  a  federal,  by  others,  a  consolidated 
government.  The  definition  given  of  it  by  my  honorable  friend 
(Mr.  Madison)  is,  in  my  opinion,  accurate.  Let  me  however,  call 
it  by  another  name,  a  representative  federal  republic,  as  contradi¬ 
stinguished  from  a  confederacy.  The  former  is  more  wisely  con¬ 
structed  than  the  latter:  it  places  the  remedy  in  the  hands  which 
feel  the  disorder  ;  the  other  places  the  remedy  in  those  hands,  which 
cause  the  disorder.  The  evils  that  aie  most  complained  of  in  such 
governments  (and  with  justice)  are  faction,  dissention,  and  conse¬ 
quent  subjection  of  the  minority,  to  the  caprice  and  arbitrary  decis¬ 
ions  of  the  majority,  who,  instead  of  consulting  the  interest  of  the 
whole  community  collectively,  attend  sometimes  to  partial  and  local 
advantages.  To  avoid  this  evil  is  .perhaps  the  great  desiderata  of 
.republican  wisdom-;  it  may  be  termed  the  philosopher’s  stone. 
Yet,  sir,  this  evil  will  be  avoided  by  this  constitution:  faction  will 
be  removed  by  the  system  now  under  consideration,  because  all  the 
causes  which  are  generally  productive  of  faction  are  removed. 
This  evil  does  not  take  its  flight  entirely  :  for  were  jealousies  and 
divisions  entirely  at  an  end,  it  might  produce  such  lethargy,  as 
would  ultimately  terminate  in  the  destruction  of  liberty,  to  the  pre¬ 
servation  of  wThich,  watchfulness  is  absolutely  necessary.  It  is 
transferred  from  the  state  legislatures  to  congress,  where  it  will  be 
more  easily  controled.  Faction  will  decrease  in  proportion  to  the 
diminution  of  counsellors.  It  is  much  easier  to  control  it  in  small, 
than  in  large  bodies.  Our  state  legislature  consists  of  upwards  of 
160,  which  is  a  greater  number  than  congress  will  consist  of,  at  first* 
Will  not  more  concord  and  unanimity  .exist  in  one,  that  in  thirteen 
such  bodies'?  Faction  will  more  probably  decrease,  or  be  entirely 
removed,  if  the  interest  of  a  nation  be  entirely  concentrated,  than  if  en¬ 
tirely  diversified.  If  thirteen  men  agree,  there  will  be  no  faction.  Yet 
if  opposite,  and  of  heterogenous  dispositions,  it  is  impossible  that 
a  majority  of  such  clashing  minds  can  ever  concur  to  oppress  the 
minority.  It  is  impossible  that  this  government,  which  will  make 
us  one  people,  will  have  a  tendency  to  assimilate  our  situations^ 
and  is  admirably  calculated  to  produce  harmony  and  unanimity,  can 
ever  admit  of  an  oppressive  combination  by  one  part  of  the  unio-i 
against  the  other. 

A  confederate  government  is,  of  all  others,  best  calculated  for  an 
extensive  country.  Its  component  individual  governments  are,  of  all 
others,  best  calculated  for  an  extensive  country.  Its  component 
individual  governments  administer  and  afford  all  the  local  conveni¬ 
ences,  that  the  most  compact  governments  can  do;  and  the  strength 
and  energy  of  the  confederacy  may  be  equal  to  those  of  any  govern¬ 
ment.  A  government  o.flhis  kind  may  extend  to  all  the  wester# 


'Corbin/] 


VIRGINIA. 


1S7 


world  :  nay,  I  may  say,  ad  infinitum.  But  it  is  needless  to  dwell 
any  longer  on  this  subject,  for  the  objection  that  an  extensive  teri- 
tory  is  repugnant  to  a  republican  government,  applies  against  this 
and  every  state  in  the  union,  except  Delaware  and  Rhode-Island. 
Were  the  objection  well  founded,  a  republican  government  could 
•exist  in  none  of  the  states,  except  those  two.  Such  an  argument 
goes  to  the  dissolution  of  the  union,  and  its  absurdity  is  demonstra¬ 
ted  by  our  own  experience. 

But  an  objection  is  urged  against  this  government,  because 
of  its  power  of  laying  direct  taxes.  Let  me  ask  the  honorable 
gentleman  who  opposes  it  on  this  ground,  if  he  reflects  whether  this 
power  be  indispensible  or  not!  Sir,  if  it  be  not  vested  with  the 
power  of  commanding  all  the  resources  of  the  state  when  necessary,* 
it  will  be  trifling.  Wars  are  as  much  (and  more]  carried  on  by  the 
length  of  the  purse,  as  by  that  of  the  sword.  They  cannot  be 
carried  on  without  money.  Unless  this  power  be  given  to  congress, 
foreign  nations  may  crush  you.  The  concession  of  this  power  is 
necessary  to  do  Virginia  justice,  by  compelling  the  delinquent  states 
to  pay  as  well  as  her :  while  she  paid  he'r  quotas,  and  her  citizens 
were  much  distressed  to  pay  their  taxes,  other  states  most  shameful¬ 
ly  neglected,  or  refused  to  pay  their  proportions.  I  trust  gentlemen 
need  not  be  alarmed  on  the  subject  of  taxation,  nor  intimidated  by 
the  idea  of  double  collectors,  who  they  tell  us  will  oppress  and  ruin 
the  people.  From  our  attention  to  our  situation  we  shall  see,  that 
this  mode  of  levying  money,  though  indispensably  necessary,  on 
great  emergencies;  will  be  but  seldom  recurred  to.  Let  us  attend  to 
the  finances  of  this  country. 

Mr  CORBIN  then  stated  the  probable  annual  amount  of  duties 
on  imported  articles,  throughout  the  continent,  including  West 
India  produce,  which,  he  said,  from  the  best  calculation  he  could 
procure,  would  exceed  the  annual  expenses  of  the  administration  of 
the  general  government,  including  the  civil  list,  contingent  charges, 
and  the  interest  of  the  foreign  and  domestic  debts,  by  80  or  90,000 
pounds  ;  that,  he  said,  would  enable  the  United  States  to  discharge 
in  a  few  years,  the  principal  debts  due  to  foreign  nations:  that  in 
the  course  o‘f  thirty  years  that  surplus  would  enable  the  United 
States  to  perform  the  most  splendid'enterprises.  He  then  concluded 
that  no  danger  was  to  be  apprehended  from  the  power  of  direct  taxa¬ 
tion,  since  there  was  every  reason  to  believe  it  would  be  very  sel¬ 
dom  used.  He  then  madernn  estimate  of  the  state  debt,  and  clearly 
proved,  that  with  economical  regulations,  all  the  demands  of  the 
internal  administration  of  government  would  be  paid  with  facility 
and  ease  from  the  different  resources  of  the  state:  and  that  there 
would  also  be  a  considerable  surplus,  which  with  prudence  and 
economy  might  answer  many  valuable  purposes.  . 


128 


DEBATES. 


[Corbin. 


Mr  Corbin  then  continued  as  follows — the  honorable  gentleman 
declared  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  if  he  could  see  one  single 
trait  in  that  government  to  secure  liberty,  he  would  not  object  to  it. 

I  meet  him  on  this  ground.  Liberty  is  secured,  sir,  by  the  limita¬ 
tion  of  its  powers  ;  which  are  clearly  and  unequivocally  defined, 
and  which  are  to  be  exercised  by  our  own  representatives  freely 
chosen.  What  power  is  given  that  will  endanger  liberty  ]  I  consider 
all  the  traits  of  this  system,  as  having  a  tendency  to  the  security  of 
our  liberty.  I  consider  all  its  powers  necessary,  and  only  given  to 
avoid  greater  evils,  and  if  this  conclusion  of  mine  be  well  founded, 
let  me  ask,  if  public  liberty  is  not  secured  by  bars  aud  adamantine 
bolts — secured  by  the  strongest  guards  and  checks,  which  human 
•ingenuity  can  invent.  Will  this  dread  power  of  taxation  render 
liberty  insecure  1  Sir,  without  this  power,  other  powers  will  answer 
no  purpose.  Government  cannot  exist  without  the  means  of  procu¬ 
ring  money.  My  honorable  friend  told  us,  he  considered  this  clause 
as  the  vitals  of  the  constitution.  I  will  change  the  phrase,  and  say, 
that  I  consider  this  part,  as  the  lungs  of  the  constitution.  If  it  be 
sick,  the  whole  system  is  consumptive,  and  must  soon  decay;  and 
this  power  can  never  be  dangerous  if  the  principles  of  equal  and 
free  representation  be  fully  attended  to.  While  the  right  of  suffrage 
is  secured,  we  have  little  to  fear.  This  government,  sir,  fully  se¬ 
cures  us  this  noble  privilege,  on  the  purest  and  simplest  principles 
of  equality.  That  number  which  in  any  one  part  of  the  country, 
has  a  right  to  send  a  representative,  has  the  same  right  in  another 
part.  What  does  the  constitution  say]  That  30,000  shall  have  one 
representative — no  matter  where.  If  this  be  not  equal  representa¬ 
tion,  what,  in  the  name  of  God,  is  equal  representation]  But,  says 
the  honorable  gentleman,  the  constitution  may  be  satisfied  by  one 
from  each  state.  I  conceive  there  is  no  fear  of  this.  There  is  not 
a  power  to  diminish  the  number.  Does  it  not  say,  that  representa¬ 
tives  shall  be  apportioned  according  to  the  number  of  the  people, 
and  that  direct  taxes  shall  be  regulated  by  the  same  rules]  Virginia, 
in  the  first  instance,  will  have  ten  times  as  many  as  Delaware,  and 
afterwards  in  proportion  to  their  numbers.  What  is  the  criterion  of 
representation  ]  Do  the  people  wish  land  only  to  be  represented  ] 
They  have  their  wish  :  for  the  qualifications  which  the  laws  of  the 
states  require  to  entitle  a  man  to  vote  for  a  state  representative,  are 
the  qualifications  required  by  this  plan,  to  vote  for  a  repiesentative 
to  emigres  ;  and  in  this  state,  and  most  of  the  others,  the  possession 
of  a  freehold  is  necessary  to  entitle  a  man  to  the  privilege  of  a  vote. 
Do  they  wish  persons  to  be  represented]  Here  also  they  are  indul¬ 
ged  :  for  the  number  of  representatives  is  determined  by  the  number 
of  people  :  this  idea  is  so  well  attended  to,  that  even  three-fifths  of 


CoRBlNc] 


VIRGINIA. 


m 

those  who  aie  not  free,  are  included  among  those  of  whom  30,000 
shall  have  a  right  to  elect  one  representative;  so  that  in  either  pom 
of  view  their  wish  is  gratified.  Is  not  liberty  secured  on  this  foun¬ 
dation?  If  it  be  not  secured  by  one  or  the  other  mode,  or  by  both,  I 
am  totally  without  reason.  Liberty  seems  entrenched  on  this  ground. 

But  the  gentleman  objects  that  the  number  is  not  sufficient.  My 
opinion,  with  deference  to  that  gentleman,  and  others  who  may  be  of 
different  opinion  from  me,  is,  that  it  is  fully  sufficient.  Being  dele¬ 
gated  solely  for  general  purposes,  a  few  intelligent  men  will  suffice, 
at  least  one  for  every  30,000,  aided  by  the  senate,  seem  sufficient. 
Are  combinations,  or  factions,  so  oftened  formed  in  small  as  in  nu¬ 
merous  bodies?  are  laws  better  irrde  in  large,  than  in  small  assem¬ 
blies?  Is  not  the  influence  of  popular  declaimers  less  in  small,  than 
in  great  bodies?  Would  not  a  more  numerous  representation  be  very 
expensive?  Is  economy  of  no  consideration?  WTe  ought,  sir,  to  at¬ 
tend  to  the  situation  of  the  people  ;  and  our  measures  should  be  as 
economical  as  possible,  without  extending,  however,  our  parsimony 
to  a  dangerous  length.  Objections  should  be  founded  on  just  and 
real  grounds,  and  ought  not  to  be  urged  out  of  a  mere  obstinacy. 
Besides,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  a  very  numerous  body  is  more 
independent,  or  upright,  than  a  small  one.  Why  should  the  number 
of  our  representatives  be  greater,  Mr.  Chairman?  The  county  of 
Middlesex,  in  England,  which  includes  the  cities  of  London  and 
Westminister,  contains  upwards  of  990,000  souls,  and  yet  sends  to 
parliament  no  more  than  eight  members.  Among  all  the  clamors  of 
the  people  there,  it  never  entered  into  the  brain  of  any  of  them,  that 
those  eight  were  not  enough.  They  complain  that  the  boroughs  of 
Old  Sarum,  Newton,  and  Gotten,  and  other  such  places,  should  send 
«ach  two  members  to  parliament,  although  without  houses  or  inhabi¬ 
tants,  while  the  richest,  city  sends  but  four.  They  also  complain  of 
the  influence  of  the  ianded  interest  in  some  cases;  that  the  county  of 
Cornwall  sends  40  members  to  parliament,  although  it  pays  but  10 
parts  out  of  513,  to  the  subsidy  and  land-tax,  when  the  county  of 
Middlesex,  which  is  calculated  to  pay  250  parts  out  of  513,  sends  but 
eight  members.  In  that  country  it  has  been  uniformly  found,  that 
those  members,  who  are  chosen  by  numerous  respectable  electors, 
make  the  greatest  opposition  to  oppression  and  corruption,  and  sig¬ 
nalize  themselves  for.  the  preservation  cf  liberty.  The  collective 
body  of  the  commons  there  have  generally  exerted  themselves  in  the 
defence  of  freedom,  and  have  been  successful  in  their  exertions,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  inequality  of  their  election.  Our  representatives 
are  chosen  in  the  fairest  manner,  their  election  is  founded  in  abso¬ 
lute  equality.  Is  the  American  spirit  so  degenerated,  notwithstanding 
these  advantages,  that  the  love  of  liberty  is  more  predominant  and 
vol.  3.  .  9 


DEBATES. 


130 


[CoRBiir, 


warm  in  the  breast  of  a  Briton,  than  in  that  of  an  American'?  When 
liberty  is  on  a  more  solid  foundation  here  that  in  Britain,  will  Ame¬ 
ricans  be  less  ready  to  maintain  and  defend  it  than  Britons'?  No, 
sir — the  spirit  of  liberty  and  independence  of  the  people  of  this  coun¬ 
try,  at  present,  is  such  that  they  could  not  be  enslaved  under  any  go¬ 
vernment  that  could  be  described.  What  danger  is  there  then  to  be 
apprehended  from  a  government,  which  is  theoretically  perfect,  and 
the  possible  blemishes  of  which  can  only  be  demonstrated  by  actual 
experience? 

The  honorable  gentleman  then  urges  an  objection  respecting  the 
militia,  who  he  tells  us,  will  be  made  the  instruments  of  tyranny  to 
deprive  us  of  our  liberty.  Your  militia,  says  he,  will  fight  against 
you.  WTho  are  the  militia?  Are  we  not  militia?  Shall  we  fight 
against  ourselves?  No,  sir,  the  idea  is  absurd.  W.e  are  also  terrifi¬ 
ed  by  the  dread  of  a  standing  army.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  we 
ought  to  have  the  means  of  defence,  and  be  able  to  repel  an  attack. 

If  some  of  the  community  are  exclusively  inured  to  its  defence, 
and  the  rest  attend  to  agriculture,  the  consequence  will  be,  that  the 
arts  of  war  and  defence,  and  of  cultivating  the  soil,  will  be  under¬ 
stood.  Agriculture  will  flourish,  and  military  discipline  will  be  per¬ 
fect.  If,  on  the  contrary,  our  defence  be  solely  entrusted  to  militia 
ignorance  of  arms,  and  negligence  of  farming,  will  ensue  :  the  former 
plan  is,  in  every  respect,  more  to  the  interest  of  the  state.  By  it  we 
shall  have' good  farmers  and  soldiers  :  by  the  latter,  we  shall  have 
neither.  If  the  inhabitants  be  called  out  on  sudden  emergencies  of 
war,  their  crops  the  means  of  their  subsistence,  may  be  destroyed  by 
it.  If  we  are  called  in  the  time  of  sowing  seed,  or  of  harvest,  the 
means  of  subsistence  might  be  lost :  and  the  loss  of  one  year’s  crop 
might  have  been  prevented  by  a  trivial  expense,  if  appropriated  to 
the  purpose  of  supporting  a  part  of  the  community,  exclusively  occu¬ 
pied  in  the  defence  of  the  whole.  I  conceive  that  this  idea,  if  it  be 
a  new  one,  is  yet  founded  on  solid  and  very  substantial  reasons.  But 
sir,  we  are  told  of  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  previous  amend¬ 
ments.  WThat  end  would  it  answer  to  attempt  it?  Will  the  states 
which  have  adopted  the  constitution,  rescind  their  adopting  resolu¬ 
tions?  Had  we  adopted  it,  would  we  recede  from  it  to  please  the 
caprice  of  any  other  state?  Pride,  sir,  revolts  at  the  idea.  Admit¬ 
ting  this  state  proposes  amendments  previous  to  her  adoption,  must 
there  not  be  another  federal  convention?  Must  there  not  be  also  a 
■convention  in  each  state?  Suppose  some  of  our  proposed  conditions 
to  be  rejected,  will  not  our  exclusion  out  of  the  union  be  the  conse¬ 
quence?  Or  would  other  conventions  again  be  called?  And  would 
be  eternally  revolving  and  devising  expedients,  without  coming  to  a 
final  decision?  The  loss  of  the  union,  sir,  must  be  the  result  of  a 


VIRGINIA. 


131 


Randolph.] 


pertinacious  demand  of  precedent  conditions.  My  idea  is,  that  we 
should  go  hand  in  hand  with  Massachusetts  ;  adopt  it  first,  and  then 
propose  amendments  of  a  general  nature,  for  local  ones  cannot  be  ex¬ 
pected.  Consider  the  situation  ot  Massachusetts,  commanding  the 
north  ;  and  the  importance  and  respectability  of  Virginia  to  the  south 
these,  sir,  are  the  two  most  populous,  wealthy,  and  powerful  states 
in  the  union.  Is  it  not  very  probable  that  their  influence  would  have 
very  great  weight  in  carrying  any  amendments'?  Would  any  gen¬ 
tleman  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  their  solicitations'?  By  union  alone  can  we 
exist  :  by  no  other  means  can  we  be  happy.  Union  must  be  the  ob¬ 
ject  of  every  gentlemen  here.  I  never  yet  have  heard  any  gentleman 
so  wild  and  frantic  in  his  opposition,  as  to  avow  an  attachment  to 

partial  confederacies.  By  previous  adoption,  the  union  will  be  pre- 

% 

served  :  by  insisting  on  alterations  previous  to  our  adoption,  the  uni¬ 
on  may  be  lost,  and  our  political  happiness  destroyed  by  internal  dis- 
sentions.  I  trust,  therefore,  that  this  convention  after  deliberate  dis¬ 
cussion,  will  not  hesitate  to  determine  on  a  previous  ratification,  ofa 
system,  which,  even  in  its  present  form,  seems  competent  to  the  per¬ 
petual  preservation  of  our  security  and  happiness. 

Mr.  HENRY  then  arose,  and  expressed  a  desire  that  the  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  on  the  other  side  (Governor  Randolph)  should  contin¬ 
ue  his  observations  on  the  subject  he  had  left  unfinished  the  day  be¬ 
fore  ;  that  he  had  before,  and  would  now  give  him  a  more  patient 
hearing,  as  he  wished  to  be  informed  of  every  thing  that  gentlemen 
could  urge  in  defence  of  that  system,  which  appeared  to  him  so  de¬ 
fective. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  gentleman  who 
■was  last  up,  has  given  us  an  opportunity  of  continuing  our  observa¬ 
tions,  I  shall,  in  resuming  the'subject,  endeavor  to  put  this  que¬ 
stion  in  a  more  correct  and  accurate  point  of  view,  than  it  has  yet 
been  put  in. 

I  took  the  liberty  yesterday,  of  declaring  to  the  house  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  national  rather  than  a  federal  government ,  and  that  the 
union  was  necessary  for  Virginia  for  many  powerful  reasons — that 
this  necessity  arose  from  the  certainty  of  her  being  involved  in  dis¬ 
putes  and  war,  with  the  adjoining  states,  and  the  probability  of  an 
attack  by  foreign  nations  ;  particularly  by  those  nations  to  which 
she  is  greatly  in  debt,  and  which  she  is  unable  to  pay — from  her  in¬ 
ability  to  raise  an  army  to  protect  her  citizens  from  internal  sedi¬ 
tions  and  external  attacks — and  her  inability  to  raise  a  navy  to  pro¬ 
tect  her  trade,  and  her  coasts  against  descents  and  invasions.  I  also, 
in  the  course  ot  my  argument  on  this  occasion,  showed  the  imbecil¬ 
ity  of  the  present  system,  in  order  to  obviate  and  detect  the  sophis¬ 
try  of  that  truly  delusive  opinion,  which  has  taken  possession  of  the 


132 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph 


minds  of  some  gentlemen,  that  this  shipwrecked  vessel  is  sufficient¬ 
ly  strong  and  safe  for  us  to  embark  in.  Whether  I  have  succeeded 
or  not,  I  have  given  the  full  effusions  of  my  soul,  in  my  attempt  to 
prove  the  futility  of  that  opinion.  Permit  me  now  to  pursue  the  ob ? 
ject  of  my  enquiry  respecting  the  powers  necessary  to  he  given  to 
the  general  government.  I  shall  discard  general  considerations  at 
present,  as  1  wish  to  be  as  brief  as  possible,  and  take  up  the  partic¬ 
ular  idea  of  direct  taxation.  Is  it  necessary  that  the  leg  islative 
power  of  the  United  States  should  be  authorized  to  levy  taxes?  A 
strange  question  to  be  agitated  in  this  house,  after  hearing  the  de¬ 
linquency  of  other  states,  and  even  of  Virginia  herself!  Money  is 
the  nerves — the  life  and  soul  of  a  government.  It  is  the  utmost  fol- 
!y  to  say,  that  a  government  could  be  cairied  on  without  this, great 
agent  of  human  affairs-  Wars  cannot  be  carried  on  without  a  full 
and  uncontrolled  discretionary  power  to  raise  money  in  an  eligible 
manner.  May,  sir,  government  cannot  be  administered  in  time  of 
peace  without  this  power.  For  how  is  it  to  be  done?  It  is  needless 
to  impress  any  faither  on  the  minds  of  the  gentlemen  who  hear  mo 
the  necessity  of  this  power  in  governments.  If  so,  ought  the  gene¬ 
ral  government  to  be  more  circumscribed  in  the  power  of  providing 
for  its  own  safety  and  existence  than  any  other  government?  Ought 
it  to  depend  for  the  means  of  its  preservation  on  ether  bodies?  This 
is  actually  0  e  case  with  the  confederation.  The  power  of  raising 
money  Was  nominally  vested  in  that  system.  In  March,  1781 ,  even 
Maryland,  the  most  backward  state  then,  conceded  that  congress 
should  have  the  power  of  receiving  and  demanding  their  proportion¬ 
ate  quotas  of  the  states.  This  was  an  acknowledgment  of  the  ne¬ 
cessity  ot  vesting  a  power  in  congress,  to  raise  such  sums  as  emer¬ 
gencies  might  require  ;  but  the  means  which  were  proposed  have 
been  found  inadequate  to  encompass  the  end  :  the  propriety  of  the 
means  is  alone  disputed.  No  doubt  it  is  the  universal  opinion  of 
the  people  of  this  commonwealth,  that  its  legislature  should  have 
■the  nower  of  raising  money  at  its  own  will  and  pleasure.  There 
are  two  ways  whereby  this  may  be  effected — by  requisitions,  or 
taxation — there  is  no  other  manner- — for  it  surpasses  the  ingenuity 
of  man  to  devise  any  other  mode  of  raising  money,  than  by  one  of 
these  two  methods.  If  the  alternative  of  requisitions  be  deter¬ 
mined  upon,  as  more  eligible,  it  will  not  avail  without  coercion.  If 
hat  of  taxation  be  preferred,  it  will  be  sufficient  without  any  coer¬ 
cion.  If  our  legislature  were  to  depend  on  requisitions  tor  money 
ro  answer  the  ends  of  government,  then,  sir,  the  absurdity  and  so¬ 
phistry  of  the  arguments  urged  in  defence  of  such  a  mode  of  procu¬ 
re.  money,  would  strike  the  weak  est  intellect.  If  the  mere  plea¬ 
ts*  of  individuals  were  alcne  to  be  consulted  :  if  it  were  left  to  the 


133 


Randolph.]  VIRGINIA. 

choice  of  your  people  to  pay  or  not,  jmur  treasury  would  be  much 
poorer  than  it  is ;  and  the  advocates  of  this  pernicious  policy  would 
perhaps  be  ashamed  of  their  pertinacity.  Suppose  for  a  moment 
the  only  existing  mode  of  raising  a  revenue  in  Virginia,  to  be  that 
of  requisitions,  suppose  your  requisitions  sent  on  to  every  county — 
say,  that  money  is  wanted — assume  the  most  pressing  language. 
We  earnestly  entreat  you.  We  humbly  supplicate  and  solicit 
you  would  turnish  us  with  one  thousand  or  one  hundred  pounds,  to 
defray  the  necessary  charges  of  our  government!  What  would  be 
the  result  of  such  applications  for  voluntary  contributions'?  You 
would  be  laughed  at  for  your  folly,  for  thinking  human  nature  could 
be  thus  operated  upon  ;  from  my  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and 
of  my  countrymen,  I  am  perfectly  certain  this  would  be  the  case. 
The  argument  will  be  found  good  in  all  cases,  it  will  admit  of  any 
extension.  I  ask  any  gentleman  in  this  house,  if  states  would  com¬ 
ply  with  what  even  if  a  few  individuals  would  refuse?  Would  not 
the  requisitions  of  congress  meet  a  similar  fate?  This,  sir,  has  as 
often  happened  as  it  has  been  the  pleasure  of  the  states  to  withhold 
the  quotas.  Not  a  shilling  has  been  put  into  the  continental  trea¬ 
sury,  but  by  the  utmost  reluctance.  The  probable  delinquency  ©f 
other  states,  has  been  the  pretext  of  non-compliance  with  every 
state.  It  has  been  thought  hard,  that  our  general  assembly  should 
pay,  when  congress  ordered  us.  Our  representatives  have  been 
supposed  careless  of  our  interest  in  paying  the  demands  of  con¬ 
gress,  while  delinquencies  happened  in  other  states.  Punctuality, 
sir,  instead  of  being  held  in  that  estimation,  which  it  really  merits, 
has  been  looked  upon  as  an  improvident  expenditure  of  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  people,  and  a  subjection  of  the  inhabitants  to  griev¬ 
ances  and  burthens,  to  which  the  people  of  delinquent  states  were 
not  exposed.  This  idea  has  been  held  in  many  states,  and  would 
bold  again.  Whosoever  depends  on  the  mere  right  to  demand  their 
lespective  proportions  of  the  states,  shews  a  total  ignorance  of  hu¬ 
man  actions,  and  betrays  an  tmacquaintance  with  the  principles  of 
sure  policy.  The  principal  ends  of  all  political  institutions  are  the 
happiness  and  safety  of  the  community  ;  but  a  reliance  on  congress¬ 
ional  requisitions  would  leave  the  country  exposed  and  open  to  those 
who  should  choose  to  invade  us,  or  lead  to  such  sedition  and  con¬ 
fusion  among  ourselves,  as  must  subvert  and  destroy  every  object 
of  human  society.  If  requisitions  be  not  faithfully  complied  with, 
military  coercion  seems  necessary ;  coercion,  judiciously  and  mode¬ 
rately  used  is  proper,  but  if  severely  and  cruelly  inflicted,  begets 
■unconquerable  aversion  and  hatred.  If  the  spirit  of  resentment  ac¬ 
tuates  individuals,  will  not  states  be  equally  vindictive?  What  spe¬ 
cs  of  military  coercion  could  the  general  government  adopt  for  the 


134  DEBATES.  [Randolph.. 

enforcement  of  obedience  to  its  demands'?  Either  an  army  sent  into 
the  heart  of  a  delinquent  state  :  or  blocking  up  its  ports.  Have  we 
lived  to  this  then,  that  in  order  to  suppress  and  exclude  tyranny,  it 
is  necessary  to  render  the  most  affectionate  friends  the  most  bitter 
enemies  :  set  the  father  against  the  son,  and  make  the  brother  slay 
the  brother?  Is  this  the  happy  expedient  that  is  to  preserve  liberty? 
Will  it  not  destroy  it :  If  an  army  be  once  introduced  to  force  us,  if 
once  marched  into  Virginia,  figure  to  yourself  what  the  dreadful 
consequence  will  be:  the  most  lamentable  civil  war  must  ensue. 
Have  we  any  troops  but  militia  to  confront  those  disciplined  bands 
that  would  be  sent  to  force  our  compliance  with  requisitions.  The 
m«st  virulent  railings  are  vented  against  the  federal  executive.  We 
are  told  that  the  president  can  fix  himself  in  the  chair  of  state — es¬ 
tablish  himself  as  a  monarch — and  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  peo¬ 
ple. 

It  has  too  often  happened,  that  powers  delegated  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  the  happiness  of  a  community,  have  been  perverted  to  the 
advancement  of  the  personal  emoluments  of  the  agents  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  ;  but  the  powers  of  the  president  are  too  well  guarded  and 
checked  to  warrant  this  illiberal  aspersion.  Let  us  candidly  consid¬ 
er  the  consequences  of  the  favorite  plan  of  requisitions,  and  see 
whether  instead  of  imaginary  or  problematical,  there  be  not  real  pal¬ 
pable  dangers.  To  compel  your  obedience,  a  rapacious  army  will 
penetrate  into  the  bosom  of  your  country,  carrying  destruction  and 
desolation  before  it.  The  commander  of  such  an  army  will  be  lia¬ 
ble  to  the  corruptions  and  passions  incident  to  other  men.  If  he  be 
possessed  of  military  genius,  address,  and  ambition,  he  may  pro¬ 
cure  this  army  to  proclaim  him  king  Who  can  tell  the  result?  Who 
can  oppose  him  with  success?  Who  can  say  to  Him,  Sir,  you  shall 
not  be  a  despot?  The  reasoning  however  inconclusive  or  illogical 
it  may  appear  to  some,  is,  in  my  estimation,  more  accurate  than  ar¬ 
guments  drawn  from  the  possibility  of  a  president’s  becoming  a  ty¬ 
rant. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  object  to  the  so  mueh  admired  alterna¬ 
tive  of  gentlemen,  were  there  no  other  reason  than  the  danger  of  an 
army  to  enforce  requisitions,  and  the  danger  of  its  general  becoming 
our  master.  I  will  not  mention  those  nations  that  might  be  applied 
to  for  aid  in  such  a  case :  it  could  easily  be  procured,  but  the  reme¬ 
dy  would  be  worse  than  the  disease.  I  speak  with  respect  to  Vir¬ 
ginia  alone.  Suppose  our  trade  was  tc  be  taken  into  the  hands  of 
congress,  they  would  find  little  to  satisfy  their  demands.  If  per¬ 
mitted  by  other  nations,  the  compensation  they  could  derive  from 
the  exclusive  control  of  our  trade  would  be  but  trival.  Great  Brit¬ 
ain,  France,  and  Holland  are  intimately  concerned  to  carry  on  trade 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


135 


with  us  :  those  nations  would  disapprove  of  the  measure ;  and  such 
■evasions  would  be  practiced  on  such  an  occasion  as  would  render  it 
totally  ineffectual.  If  congress  were  then  to  block  up  our  ports,  or 
“Send  an  army  into  our  country,  Virginia  would  be  in  such  a  horrid 
situation  as  would  induce  her  to  call  for  the  aid  of  foreign  nations, 
they  have  their  eyes  fixed  on  us ;  they  watch  every  opportunity  to 
avail  themselves  of  our  divisions.  It  is  their  interest  we  should  be 
weak  and  divided.  Any  of  them  would  readily  engage  in  our  dis- 
sentions  ;  none  of.them  would  be  displeased  at  our  distractions. 
But  what  would  be  their  object  in  assisting  us!  On  what  principles 
have  auxiliaries  ever  been  sent  to  the  aid  of  a  country!  Shew  me  an 
instance  (except  the  conduct  of  France  to  America)  where  auxilia¬ 
ries  have  not  either  attempted,  or  actually  made  themselves  masters 
of  those  they  assisted!  With  fespect  to  France,  her  magnanimity  to 
America,  is  almost  unprecedented.  She  has  displayed  a  degree  of 
disinterestedness  and  generosity,  not  often  exemplified  in  the  annals 
of  mankind.  Till  France  joined  us,  our  troops  were  not  able  to 
withstand  the  enemy.  Yet  the  fate  of  many  other  nations  ought  to 
convince  us,  that  the  assistance  of  foreigners  is  the  most  dangerous, 
and  the  last  experiment  that  ought  to  be  recuired  to.  Yet  the  pre¬ 
diction  for  retaining  the  power  of  direct  taxation  is  not  to  be  over¬ 
come. 

An  expedient,  proposed  by  a  gentleman  whom  I  do  not  now  see 
in  the  house  [Mr.  George  Mason]  is,  that  this  power  shall  be  only 
given  to  the  general  government,  as  an  alternative  after  requisitions 
shall  have  been  refused.  The  most  positive  requisitions  will  be 
unavailable,  and  failure  will  produce  war.  A  formal  refusal,  or 
negligent  non-ccmpliance  with  the  demands  of  congress,  under  a 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  this  execrated  alternative,  would  be 
a  prelude  to  active  opposition.  I  consider  this  expedient  very  little 
better  than  the  ineffectual  mode  of  simple  requisitions.  The  only 
difference  is,  that  it  gives  a  little  more  time  to  a  refractory  state  to 
provide  itself  with  arms  and  foreign  alliance,  to  enable  it  to  oppose 
the  operation  of  this  alternative,  and  resist  federal  collectors,  as  was 
observed  by  the  honorable  gentleman  in  the  chair. — The  proper  time 
will  be  picked  for  the  commencement  of  opposition,  and  for  putting 
the  bayonet  to  the  breasts  of  their  fellow-citizens.  Suppose  a  re¬ 
quisition  to  be  made  on  Virginia  for  200,000  pounds:  she  fails  to 
comply :  taxes  are  then  to  be  collected  in  the  common  manner.  Is 
it  not  probable  that  the  aversion  to  the  exercise  of  this  power  by 
the  general  government  will  incite  discontended  minds  to  oppose  it! 
Then,  sir,  the  dogs  of  war  are  to  be  let  loose,  and  inconceivable 
mischief  to  ensue.  If  the  inability  of  the  people  requires  an  exten¬ 
sion  of  the  time  of  payment;  let  them  be  indulged  as  far  as  may 


138  DEBATES.  [Randolph 

be  consistent  with  a  regard  for  the  public  exigencies  :  but  let  ns  not 
be  so  infatuated  as  to  choose  an  expedient,  which  must  either  be  in¬ 
adequate  to  the  destined  purpose,  or  eventuate  in  bloodshed  and> 
%var.  Requisitions,  sir,  however  modified,  must  come  within  this- 
description;  they  strike  me  with  horror  and  disgust.  I  would  as 
soon  see  a  separation  from  the  union,  and  trust  to  the  genius,  pa¬ 
triotism,  vigilance,  and  activity,  to  the  morals  and  natural  upright¬ 
ness  of  the  people,  as  to  ask  a  government  with  no  other  powers 
than  those  whereof  our  present  system  is  possessed.  This  is  art 
improvement  on  that  system;  and  if  we  reject  it  we  are  ruined. 

Our  credit  is  depressed  and  irretrievably  gone,  without  a  change 
of  that  system  which  has  caused  its  depression.  It  is  humiliating 
and  disgraceful,  to  recur  to  loans,,  situated  as  we  are.  It  is  ruinous- 
on  any  condition,  on  which  our  credit  could  be  competent  to  obtain, 
them;  though  under  a  regular  judicious  system  of  administration, 
they  may  be  very  salutary  and  beneficial.  If  some  accounts  be  be¬ 
lieved,  your  ambassador  has  received  from  the  king  of  France  thosesy 
stipends  which  have  supported  him..  Is  this  honorable!  Is  it  safe 
for  America? — Safety,  sir,  forbids  so  dishonorable  and  despicable  a 
conduct  as  to  leave  our  representatives  in  a  state  of  absolute  depen¬ 
dence  on  another  power.  Will  not  this  situation  be  freely  and  for¬ 
cibly  represented  to  him?  Remembef,  sir,  the  bread  you  eattc~mor~ 
row,  depends  on  the  bounty  of  the  Count  de  Verge  lines!  Is  it  possi¬ 
ble  that  in  our  present  circumstances,  we  can  inspire  any  one  with 
confidence  in  our  engagements?  Where,  in  the  hour  of  distress  and 
calamity,  shall  congress  be  able'to  borrow  money?  The  present  rev¬ 
enues  are  appropriated  to  different  purposes,  and  are  from  the  in¬ 
competency  of  requisitions,  inadequate  to  the  public  exigencies.. 
Admitting  the  impost  will  be  sufficiently  productive  to  enable  qon- 
gress  to  discharge  its  engagements,  and  answer  all  the  demands  of 
government,  in  case  of  a  war,  will  not  necessity  and  the  fear  of  dan¬ 
ger  render  it  necessary  for  the  general  government  to  divert  the  rew- 

• 

enues  from  the  usual  appropriations,  to  the  defence  of  the  union  ?• 
The  necessity  of  such  a  diversion,  does  not  lessen  the  certainty,  that* 
the  public  credit  would  be  destroyed  by  it.  The  interest  on  the  pub¬ 
lic  debt  could  not  be  paid — foreign  and  domestic  creditors  would  be 
disappointed  and  irritated,  and  the  displeasure  of  the  former  mights 
lead  to  the  most  serious  consequences.  What  could  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  do  in  such  a  situation,  without  the  power  of  providing 
money  by  taxation?  Requisitions  would  be  fruitless  and  ineffectual; 
nor  could  a  government  which  depended  on  such  a  slender  and  in¬ 
efficient  force,  meet  with  credulity  enough  any  where  to  trust  it. 
Will  you  expose  the  continental  congress  to  such  a  critical  distress'? 
Do  you  consult  public  liberty  by  reducing  it  to  an  extremity,  where- 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


137 


of  none  can  with  certainty  foretell  the  dangerous  consequences?  Is 
it  not  laying  a  train  by  which  liberty  is  to  be  blown  up1*  By  with¬ 
holding  a  necessary  power,  you  may  unwarily  lay  the  foundation  of 
usurpation  itself. 

I  conclude  with  my  firm  belief,  that  I  shew  my  friendship  for 
Virginia  more  steadfastly  by  discarding  these  requisitions,  than  by 
any  proposition  I  could  suggest. 

The  benefits  arising  from  loans,  are  innumerable.  Every  nation, 
even  the  most  wealthy,  and  the  oldest  nations,  have  found  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  recur  to  loans  in  time  of  war.  This  country  has  found  it  so 
even  in  time  of  peace:  but  on  a  supposition  of  war,  we  must  bor¬ 
row  money.  It  will  be  inevitable.  How  can  congress  have  credit 
to  borrow  any  sum  to  a  considerable  amount,  on  any  reasonable  con¬ 
ditions,  unless  it  have  full  scope,  and  complete  command  over  the 
resources  of  the  union?  Whatever  may  be  the  visionary  and  fanci¬ 
ful  conclusions  of  political  sceptics,  the  credit  of  a  nation  will  be 
found  to  be  co-exiensive  with  its  ability.  If  congress  have  an  uncon¬ 
trolled  power  to  raise  monejr,  as  contingencies  may  render  it  necessa¬ 
ry  it  can  borrow  with  ease  :  but  if  it  have  not  this  power,  it  is  not  pos¬ 
sible  that  any  confidence  can  be  put  in  it. 

The  difficulty  of  justly  apportioning  the  taxes  among  the  statds 
under  the  present  system,  has  been  complained  of;  the  rule  of  ap¬ 
portionment  being  the  value  of  all  lands  and  improvements  within 
the  states  :  the  inequality  between  the  rich  lands  of  James  river  and 
the  barrens  of  Massachusetts,  has  been  thought  to  mitigate  against 
Virginia.  If  taxes  could  be  laid  according  to  the  real  value, 
no  inconvenience  could  follow;  but  from  a  variety  of  reasons  this 
value  was  very  difficult  to  be  ascertained  :  and  an  error  in  the  esti¬ 
mation  must  necessarily  have  been  oppressive  to  a  part  of  the  com¬ 
munity.  But  in  this  new  constitution,  there  is  a  more  just  and 
equitable  rule  fixed  ;  a  limitation  beyond  which  they  cannot  go. 
Representatives  and  taxes  go  hand  in  hand  :  according  to  the  one 
will  the  other  be  regulated.  The  number  of  representatives  are  de¬ 
termined  by  the  number  of  inhabitants — they  have  nothing  to  do  but 
to  lay  taxes  accordingly.  I  will  illustrate  it  by  a  familiar  example. 
At  present  before  the  actually  numbered,  the  number  of  representa¬ 
tives  is  sixty-five  :  of  this  number,  Virginia,  has  a  right  to  send  ten  ; 
consequently  she  will  to  pay  ten  parts  out  of  sixty-five  parts,  of  any 
sum  that  may  be  necessary  to  be  raised  by  congress :  this,  sir,  is 
the  line. — Can  congress  go  beyond  the  bounds  prescribed  in  the 
constitution? — Has  congress  a  power  to  say,  that  she  shall  pay  fif¬ 
teen  parts  out  of  sixty-five  parts?  Were  they  to  assume  such  a 
power,  it  would  be  an  usurpation  so  glaring,  that  rebellion  would  be 
the  immediate  consequence. — Congress  is  only  to  say  on  what 


DEBATES. 


138 


[Randolph. 


subject  the  tax  is  to  be  laid.  It  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence* 
how  it  will  be  imposed,  since  it  must  be  clearly  laid  on  the  most 
productive  article  in  each  particular  state.  I  am  surprised  that  such 
strong  objections  should  have  been  made  to,  and  such  fears  and 
alarms  excited  by  this  power  of  direct  taxation  ;  since  experience 
shews  daily,  that,  it  is  neither  inconvenient  nor  oppressive.  A  col¬ 
lector  goes  to  a  man’s  house  ;  the  man  pays  him  with  freedom,  or 
makes  an  apology  for  his  inability  to  do  it  then :  at  a  future  day,  if 
payment  be  not  made,  distress  is  made,  and  acquiesced  in  it  by 
the  party.  What  difference  is  there  between  this  and  a  tax 
imposed  by  congress?  Is  it  not  done  by  lawful  authority?  The 
distinction  is  between  a  Virginian  and  continental  authority.  Yet, 
in  both  cases,  it  is  imposed  by  ourselves,  through  the  medium 
of  our  representatives.  When  a  tax  will  come  to  be  laid  by  con¬ 
gress,  the  collector  will  apply  in  like  manner,  and  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner  receives  payment,  or  an  apology  ;  at  a  future  day,  likewise,  the 
same  consequences  will  result  from  a  failure.  I  presume,  sir,  there 
is  a  manifest  similarity  between  the  two  cases.  When  gentlemen 
complain  of  the  novelty,  they  ought  to  advert  to  the  singular  one 
that  must  be  the  consequence  of  the  requisitions ;  an  army  sent  into 
your  country  to  force  you  to  comply.  Will  not  this  be  the  dissolu¬ 
tion  of  the  union,  if  ever  it  takes  effect?  Let  us  be  candid  on  this 
subject :  let  us  see  if  the  criterion  here  fixed,  be  not  equal  and  just. 
Were  the  tax  laid  on  one  uniform  article  through  the  union,  its  ope¬ 
ration  would  be  oppressive  on  a  considerable  part  of  the  people. 
When  any  sum  is  necessary  for  the  general  government,  every 
state  will  immediately  know  its  exact  proportion  of  it,  from  the  num¬ 
ber  of  their  people  and  representatives;  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that 
the  tax  will  be  laid  on  each  state,  in  the  manner  that  will  best  ac¬ 
commodate  t‘>e  people  of  such  state,  as  thereby  it  will  be  raised 
with  more  facility ;  for  an  oppressive  mode  can  never  be  so  produc¬ 
tive  as  the  most  easy  for  the  people. 

The  system  under  consideration  is  objected  to  as  unconnected  and 
irregular  manner :  detached  parts  are  attacked  without  considering 
the  whole:  this,  sir,  is  disingenuous  and  unreasonable.  Ask  if  the 
powers  be  unnecessary?  If  the  end  proposed  can  be  obtained  by 
any  other  means,  the  powers  may  be  unnecessary?  Infallibility  was 
not  arrogated  by  the  convention  :  they  included  in  the  system  those 
powers  they  thought  necessary.  If  you  do  not  think  those  powers  indis- 
pensible,  never  give  them  up.  But,  I  trust,  this  power  of  imposing 
direct  taxes  has  been  proved  to  be  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  union.  The  advocates  for  the  national  grovemment,  circumstan- 

o 

ced  as  they  are,  with  the  accession  of  so  many  states,  never  will 
give  their  assent  to  leave  it  in  their  power  of  the  states  to  sacrifice 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


13$* 


the  union.  It  has  been  observed  by  an  honorable  gentleman  over 
the  way  (Mr.  George  Mason)  that  there  could  not  be  a  fellow-feel¬ 
ing  between  the  national  representatives  and  their  constituents,  and 
that  oppression  must  be  inseparable  from  their  exercise  of  the  pow¬ 
er  of  imposing  taxes.  I  beg  leave  to  remind  you  of  a  similar  com-* 
plaint  made  on  a  similar  occasion.  I  allude  to  the  Scotch  Union*. 
If  gentlemen  cast  their  eyes  to  that  period,  they  will  find  there  an, 
instructive  similitude  between  our  circumstances  and  the  situation; 
of  those  people.  The  advocates  for  an  union  with  England,  de¬ 
clared  that  it  would  be  a  foundation  of  lasting  peace  ;  remove  all 
jealousies  between  them :  increase  their  strength  and  riches ;  and 
enable  them  to  resist  more  effectually,  the  efforts  of  the  Pretender* 
These  were  irresistible  arguments,  one  would  be  inclined  to  be¬ 
lieve  ;  arguments,  a  priori ,  which  challenge  conviction,  and  which 
appear  perfectively  conclusive,  since  now  verified  by  actual  events* 
Yet  the  opposers  to  that  union,  declaimed,  that  the  independence  of 
Scotland  was  gone ;  that  the  peerage  of  Scotland  was  degraded 
that  the  people  of  England  would  alone  be  gainers,  and  that  the 
people  of  Scotland  would  be  the  losers.  IIow  are  the  facts'?  Both 
kingdoms  have  deiived  great  benefits  from  that  union,  and  the  pre¬ 
dictions  of  the  advocates  for  that  union  have  been  fully  verified* 
The  arguments  used  on  that  occasion,  apply  with  more  cogency  to 
our  situation. 

The  people  of  Rhode  Island  may  say,  their  independence  will  be 
lost  by  an  union  with  the  other  states  ;  that  they  will  be  degraded 
their  consequence  lost,  and  their  liberties  endangered.  Many 
such  spacious  and  plausible  arguments  may  be  urged  by  their  great 
men,  who  would  no  longer  retain  the  importance,  which  their  paper 
money,  and  other  causes  give  them  in  a  single  state:  yet  the  topo¬ 
graphical  situation  of  that  state  renders  union  more  essential  to  its 
existence,  than  to  that  of  any  ether  state.  It  is  urged  that  the  in¬ 
dependence  of  Virginia  will  be  gone,  by  the  union?  "Will  not  alii 
the  happy  effects  of  the  union  I  have  just  mentioned,  and  more,  re¬ 
dound  to  Virginia  from  this  union?  But  our  representatives  arc 
suspected.  On  a  further  inspection  of  the  system  before  you,  this 
objection  must  vanish.  Ten  representatives  will  have  no  fellow- 
feeling  for  their  constituents!  Will  not  the  people  choose  men  of 
integrity,  and  with  similar  circumstances  with  themselves,  to  repre¬ 
sent  them?  What  laws  can  they  make  that  will  not  operate  on 
themselves  and  friends,  as  well  as  on  the  rest  on  the  people?  Will 
the  people  re-elect  the  same  men  to  repeat  oppressive  legislation? 
Will  the  people  commit  suicide  against  themselves,  and  discard  all 
those  maxims  and  principles  of  interest  and  self-preservatk>n  which 
actuate  mankind  in  all  their  transactions?  Will  the  ten  miles 


140 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


square  transform  our  representatives  into  brutes  and  tyrants'?  I  see 
no  grounds  to  distrust  them  :  but  suppose  they  will  be  inclined  to 
do  us  mischief,  how  can  they  effect  it1?  Tf  the  federal  necessities 
call  for  the  sum  of  65,000  pounds,  our  proportion  of  that  surmis  10- 
000  pounds.  If,  instead  of  this  just  proportion,  they  should  require 
a  greater  sum  a  conflict  would  ensue.  What  steps  could  they  take 
to  enforce  the  payment  of  the  unjust  and  tyrannical  demand?  They 
must  summon  up  all  the  genius  of  better  men  :  but  in  case  of  actual 
violence,  they  could  not  raise  the  thousandth  part  of  ten  thousand 
pounds.  In  case  of  a  struggle,  sir,  the  people  would  be  irresistible. 
If  they  should  be  so  liable  to  lapse  from  Virtue,  yet  would  not  one 
man  be  found  out  of  a  multitude  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  people? 
Not  one  man  to  hold  up  his  head  to  discover  the  tyrannical  projects 
of  a  corrupt  and  depraved  majority? 

Suppose  the  house  of  representatives  all  equally  infatuated  and 
determined  on  so  wicked  an  intention  as  to  infringe  the  rights  of  the 
people,  they  have  not  the  whole  authority  in  their  own  hands. 
There  are  twenty-six  senators,  distinguished  for  their  wisdom,  not  u 
elevated  by  popular  favor,  but  choseh  by  a  select  body  of  intelligent 
men:  will  they  also  be  corrupt?  Will  their  honor  and  virtue  be 
contaminated  and  disgraced  in  one  instant?  Sixty-five  representa¬ 
tives  and  twenty-six  senators  are  then  to  be  suddnely  changed  from 
upright  men  to  monsters  :  ninety-one  persons  selected  for  superior 
qualities  are  to  compose  this  Pandemonium  of  iniquity.  The  sup¬ 
position  of  their  degenerating  to  such  a  degree  is  unwarrantable,  and 
inconsistent  with  an  admission  of  their  being  freely  chosen,  by  a 
people  capable  of  discerning  merit :  and  should  a  majority  ever  be 
so  forgetful  of  their  duty,  as  to  wish  to  trample  on  the  immunities 
of  their  people,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  some  of  them  will 
be  so  far  inspired  with  a  zeal  for  liberty,  as  to  warn  their  country  of 
any  dangerous  combinations  against  their  privileges.  The  people, 
to  heighten  their  security,  may  send  those  to  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  who  have  been  signalized  for  their  wisdom  and  virtue.  What 
security  have  the  people  of  Virginia  against  the  possible  abuses  of 
their  legislature,  that  is  not  here?  But  their  number  is  objected  to, 
as  being  too  small.  I  should  reluctantly  assent  to  this  representa¬ 
tive  body,  did  I  conceive  it  consisted  of  too  few. 

It  is  an  established  maxim,  that  such  a  body  ought  to  be  nume¬ 
rous  enough  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  interest  of  the  people, 
to  prevent  corruption,  and  give  a  chance  to  men  of  merit  to  be  elec¬ 
ted.  If  the  number  be  not  sufficient  for  these  purposes,  I  confess  it 
to  be  a  defect.  The  number  is  sixty-five,  of  which  ten  represent 
this  state.  Cannot  they  inform  themselves  of  the  situation  of 
America?  I  appeal  to  those  who  hear  me,  if  they  could  not  rely  on  the 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA, 


141 


intelligence  of  ten  men  they  could  fix  upon,  sooner  than  upon  any 
crowd  they  could  have?  I  do  not  reflect  on  my  countrymen,  but 
there  is  a  certain  listlessness  and  inattention  to  the  interest  of  the 
community— and  indecision  or  faction  in  numerous  bodies,  that  I 
would  rather  depend  on  the  virtue  and  knowledge^  of  some  few  men, 
than  on  ever  so  many.  The  mode  of  their  election  must  induce  us 
to  believe,  that  they  will  be  men  of  experience  and  information. 
The  state  will  be  laid  off  and  divided  into  ten  districts  :  from  each 
of  these  a  man  is  to  be  elected.  Be  must  be  really  the  choice  of 
the  people  :  not  the  man  who  can  distribute  the  most  gold  :  for  tho 
riches  of  Croesus  would  not  avail.  The  qualifications  of  the  elec¬ 
tors  being  <the  same  as  those  of  the  representatives  for  the  state  le¬ 
gislatures,  and  the  election  being  under  the  control  of  the  leoisla- 
^Jure  ;  the  prohibitory  provisions  against  undue  means  of  procuring 
votes  to  the  state  representation,  extend  to  the  federal  representa¬ 
tives  :  the  extension  of  tHte  sphere  of  election  to  so  considerable 
a  district,  will  render  it  impossible  for  conti acted  influence,  or 
local  intrigues,  or  personal  interest  to  procure  an  election.  En¬ 
quiries  will  be  made  by  the  voters,  into  the  characters  of  the  can¬ 
didates.  Greater  talents,  and  a  more  ext;  nsive  reputation  will 
be  necessary,  to  procure  an  election  for  the  federal,  than  for  the  \ 
state  representation.  The  federal  representatives  must  therefore 
be  well  known  for  their  integrity,  and  their  knowledge  of  the 
country  they  represent.  We  shall  have  ten  men  thus  elected. 

What  are  they  going  yonder  fori  Not  to  consult  for  Virginia 

* 

alone,  but  for  the  interest  of  Yhe  United  States  collectively.  Will 
not  such  men  derive  sufficient  information  from  their  own  know¬ 
ledge  of  their  respective  States,  and  from  the  codes  of  the  diffe¬ 
rent  states'?  The  want  of  information  ought  no  longer  to  be  urged 
as  an  objection. 

With  respect  to  merit,  sir,  the  house  must  be  satisfied  that  there 
is  ample  room  for  it,  A  cottager  will  receive  the  votes  of  this 
country,  as  well  as  the  descendant  of  any  aristocrat  of  this  country. 
Is  it  not  notorious  that  virtue  and  ability  have  been  preferred  gen¬ 
erally  here  to  virtue  and  connections?  The  present  number,  sixty- 
five,  is  to  be  increased  according  to  the  progressive  augmentation 
of  the  number  of  the  people.  From  the  present  number  of  inhabi¬ 
tants,  which  is  estimated  at  352,000  whites,  and  236,000  blacks, 
we  shall  be  entitled  to  fifteen  representatives.  But  here  another 
objection  will  be  offered :  it  will  be  complained,  that  the  taxes  will 
be  increased  according  to  the  number  of  representatives  on  which 
I  will  only  observe  here,  that  the  same  rule'  operates  i  n  all  the 
states,  and  that  it  is  not  more  unjust,  or  oppressive  in  one  state  than 
in  another.  The  number  of  representatives  is  as  great  as  t aa  be 


DEBATES* 


Randolph* 
i 

paid  by  America  at  this  time  :  and  “whatever  other  gentlemen  may 
conclude  on  that  subject,  I  think  for  my  part,  that  it  would  be  for¬ 
tunate  if  the  number  was  to  continue  as  it  is  at  present,  for  a  long 
time ;  or,  at  least,  that  it  should  be  limited,  not  to  exceed  a  cer¬ 
tain  amount  ;  for,  if  you  swell  the  legislative  list  to  such  a  degree 
as  the  increase  of  population,  at  a  reasonable  calculation,  at  will  a 
period  not  very  remote,  entitle  the  people  to  send,  it  will  introduce 
•corruption  and  confusion,  and  prevent  that  secrecy,  without  which 
success  can  never  be  expected  in  negotiations,  or  other  transactions. 
It  was  my  purpose  to  answer  the  objections  against  the  power  of 
the  national  government  to  lay  direct  taxes;  and  against  the  mode 
of  representation.  j 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  much  longer  on  the  subject  ;  were  one  to 
rise  from  the  dead  to  declare  the  expediency  of  that  power,  I  could 
not  be  more  firmly  persuaded  than  I  arn^  now,  of  its  propriety.  To 
dissuade  us  from  conceding  this  power,  gentiemen  alarm  us  with  ap¬ 
prehensions  that  the  most  intolerable  oppressions  will  be  committed 
by  the  federal  collectors.  Let  us  consider  this  dispassionately;  and 
whether  the  idea  be  well  founded,  which  is  suggested,  that  a  conflict 
will  frequently  happen  between  the  state  and  congressional  collector 
for  property  seized  and  claimed  by  both.  If  there  be  no  necessity, 
or  strong  temptation,  to  increase,  the  present  number  of  officers,  no 
addition  will  be  made  to  them.  Congress  will  have  every  induce¬ 
ment.  and  f^om  the  mode  of  their  appointment,  must  be  inclined  to 
lighten  the  burthens  of  the  people.  They  can  derive  no  advantage 
from  a  contrary  conduct.  In  other  countries,  where  the  face  of  the 
poor  is  wretched  officers  are  created  merely  for  the  emolument  of  cer 
tain  individuals;  but  by  the  structure  of  this  government,  the  interest 
the  people  must  always  be  considered — nor  will  any  but  necessary 
officers  be  created.  The  number  of  officers,  and  their  compensations 
will  be  as  inconsiderable,  as  the  nature  of  their  business  will  admit 
of.  With  respect  to  collectors  of  the  general  taxes,  I  have  not  the 
■least  doubt  that  congress  will  employ  the  state  officers  and  sheriffs, 
because  it  will  be  economical,  and  agreeable  to  the  people ;  a  con¬ 
siderable  sum  will  be  saved  by  it.  They  will  employ  such  men, 
Mr  Chairman,  unless  they  determine  to  throwaway  the  public  mo¬ 
ney  in  an  unjustifiable  manner.  They  will  never  adopt  measures 
which  may  produce  discontent  in  the  country,  when  they  can  effect 
4he  same  purpose  by  peaceable  and  satisfactory  means.  With  re¬ 
gard  to  any  personal  abuse  or  misconduct  of  a  collector,  such  an  of¬ 
ficer  would  be  amenable  to  the  laws,  like  any  other  citizen  :  he  is 
only  protected  by  the  law;  where  he  acts  lawfully — in  such  cases  the 
evil  would  not  be  repeated — it  could  not  continue.  Congress  can  take 
-,away  their  offices  from  such  men  as  abuse  them,  and  give  them  to 


Madison.]  VIRGINIA.  143 

others,  ft  cannot  be  believed  that  they  will  carry  their  wickedness 
so  far  as  to  trust  men  of  this  stamp. 

As  to  the  mode  of  paying  the  taxes,  little  need  be  said — it  is  im¬ 
material  which  way  they  are  to  be  paid  ;  for  they  are  to  be  paid  only 
once.  I  had  an  objection  which  pressed  heavily  on  my  mind — I  was 
solicitious  to  know  the  objects  of  taxation.  I  wished  to  make  some 
discrimination  with  regard  to  the  demands  of  congress,  and  of  the 
states,  on  the  same  object.  As  neither  can  restrain  the  other  in  this 
case,  as  the  power  of  both  is  unlimited,  it  will  be  their  interest  mu¬ 
tually  to  avoid  interferences  ;  it  will  most  certainly  be  the  interest 
of  either  to  avoid  imposing  a  tax  on  an  article,  which  shall  have  been 
previously  taxed  by  the  other.  This  consideration,  and  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  government  satisfy  me.  I  cannot  foretel,  in  the  course  of 
human  events,  what  Virginia  and  the  United  States  may  be  exposed 
to,  blindfolded  as  I  am  with  respect  to  futurity  ;  but  I  would  not  res¬ 
train  congress  in  this  case,  unless  I  meant  to  destroy  the  government 
itself.  What  will  be  the  consequence  of  withholding  this  power 
from  congress'?  Will  it  not  be  reduced  to  the  most  dangerous  dis¬ 
tress,  if  a  war  should  happen?  The  case  has  happened  and  may 
again.  In  case  of  domestic  war,  or  on  an  invasion,  every  shilling 
they  could  lay  their  hands  on,  would  be  necessary,  but  not  sufficient 
to  carry  it  on.  What  could  the  general  government  do,  without  this 
force  to  procure  money,  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  its  other 
exigencies?  I  beg  the  friends  of  the  union  to  consider  the  necessity 
of  this  power — without  it  we  may  abandon  the  government  altogeth¬ 
er — it  is  the  soul  of  the  government — no  substitute  will  answer  in  its 
stead.  The  history  of  other  confederacies  will  instruct  us,  that  the 
general  government  must  operate  on  the  individuals  of  the  communi¬ 
ty  ;  or  else  be  totally  insufficient.  Not  ancient  confederacies  only, 
but  certain  modern  ones,  will  point  out  to  us  the  horrid  situation  in 
which  these  states  must  be  involved,  unless  the  general  government 
be  vested  with  this  power.  The  history  of  those  confederacies  will 
discover  to  us  the  dreadful  misfortunes  which  their  people  will  have 
suffered  by  the  imbecility  of  their  governments.  If  some  other  gen¬ 
tlemen  will  not,  I  shall  discover,  at  another  opportunity,  that  mourn¬ 
ful  history. 

Mr.  MADISON.-— Mr.  Chairman,  in  considering  this  great  subject 
I  trust  we  shall  find  that  part  which  gives  the  general  government  the 
power  of  laying  and  collecting  taxes,  indispensible  and  essential  to 
the  existence  of  any  efficient,  or  well  organized  system  of  govern¬ 
ment  :  if  we  consult  reason,  and  be  ruled  by  its  dictates,  we  shall  find 
its  justification  there  ;  if  we  review  the  experience  we  have  had,  or 
contemplate  the  history  of  nations,  here  we  find  ample  reasons  to 
prove  its  expediency.  There  is  little  reason  to  depend  for  necessary 


144 


DEBATES.  [Madison. 

supplies  on  a  body  which  is  fully  possessed  of  the  power  of  Withhold¬ 
ing  them.  If  a  government  depends  on  other  governments  for  its  re¬ 
venues  :  if  it  must  depend  on  the  voluntary  contributions  of  its  mem¬ 
bers,  its  existence  must  be  precarious.  A  government  which  relies 
on  thirteen  independent  sovereignties,  for  the  means  of  its  existence, 
is  a  solecism  in  theory,  and  a  mere  nullity  in  practice.  Is  it  consis¬ 
tent  with  reason,  that  such  a  government  can  promote  the  happiness 
of  any  people?  It  is  subversive  of  every  principle  of  sound  policy, 
to  trust  the  safety  of  a  community  With  a  government,  totally  desti¬ 
tute  of  the  means  of  protecting  itself  or  its  members.  Can  congress, 
after  the  repeated  unequivocal  proofs  it  has  experienced  of  the  utter 
inutility  and  ineflicacy  of  requisitions-  reasonably  expect,  ttyat  they 
would  be  hereafter  effectual  or  productive?  Will  not  the  sar^e  local 
interests,  and  other,  causes,  militate  against  a  compliance.  Whoever 
hopes  the  contrary  must  ever  be  disappointed.  The  effect,  sir,  can¬ 
not  be  changed  without  a  removal  of  the  cause.  Let  each  county  in 
this  commonwealth  be  supposed  free  and  independent  ;  letyourrev- 
enues  depend  on  requisitions  of  proportionate  quotas  from  them:  let 
application  be  made  to  them  repeatedly  :  is  it  to  be  presumed  that 
they  would  comp]}',  or  that  an  adequate  collection  could  be  made 
from  partial  compliances?  It  is  now  difficult  to  collect  the  taxes 
from  them  :  how  much  would  that  difficulty  be  enhanced,  were  you 
to  depend  solely  on  their  generosity?  1  appeal  to  reason  or  every  gen¬ 
tleman  here,  whether  he  is  not  persuaded,  that  the  present  confedera¬ 
tion  is  as  feeble,  as  the  government  of  Virginia  would  be  in  that  case 
to  the  same  reason  1  appeal,  whether  it  be  incompatible  with  pru¬ 
dence  to  continue  a  government  of  such  manifest  and  palpable  de¬ 
bility. 

If  we  recur  to  history,  and  review'  the  annals  of  mankind,  1  under¬ 
take  to  say  that  no  instance  can  be  produced  by  the  most  learned 
roan  of  any  confederate  government,  that  will  justify  a  continuation 
of  the  present  system  ;  or  that  will  not  demonstrate  the  necessity 
of  this  change  :  and  of  substituting  to  tho  present  pernicious  and 
fatal  plan,  the  system  now  under  consideration,  or  one  equally  ener¬ 
getic.  The  uniform  conclusion  drawn  from  a  review  of  ancient  and 
modern  confederacies,  is,  that  instead  of  promoting  the  public  hap¬ 
piness,  or  securing  public  tranquility,  they  have,  in  every  instance, 
been  productive  of  anarchy  and  confusion  ;  ineffectual  for  the  pre¬ 
servation  of  harmony,  and  a  prey  to  their  own  dissentions  and  for¬ 
eign  invasions. 

The  Amphyetionic  league  resembled  our  confederation  in  its  nom- 
\  # 

leal  powers ;  it  was  possessed  of  rather  more  power.  The  component 
states  retained  their  sovereignty",  and  enjoyed  an  equality  of  suffrage 
in  the  federal  council.  But  though  its  powers  were  more  considor- 


Madison.-]  VIRGINIA.  145 

able  in*  many  respects  than  those  of  our  present  system  ;  yet  it  had 
the  same  radical  defect.  Its  powers  were  exercised  over  its  indivi¬ 
dual  members,  in  their  political  capacities.  To  this  capital  defect 
It  owed  its  disorders,  and  final  destruction ;  It  wa3  compelled  to 
recur  to  the  sanguinary  coercion  of  war  to  enforce  its  decrees.— 
The  struggles  consequent  on  a  -refusal  to  obey  a  decree,  and  an 
attempt  to  enforce  it,  produced  the  necessity  of  applying  to  foreign 
assistance  ;  by  complying  with  such  an  application,  together  with 
his  intrigues,  Philip  of  Macedon  acquired  sufficient  influence  to 
become  a  member  of  the  league.  This  artful,  and  insidious  prince, 
soon  after  became  master  of  their  liberties* 

The  Achean  league,  though  better  constructed  than  the  Amphyc- 
tionic,  in  mateiial  respects,  was  continually  agitated  with  domestic 
dissentions,  and  driven  to  the  necessity  of  calling  in  foreign  aid  ; 
this,  also,  eventuated  in  the  demolition  of  their  confederacy.  Had 
they  been  more  closely  united,  their  people  would  have  been  happi¬ 
er;  and  their  united  wisdom  and  strength,  would  not  only  have 
.rendered  unnecessary  all  sovereign  interpositions  in  their  affairs, 
hut  would  have  enabled  them  to  repel  the  attack  of  an  enemy.  If 
we  descend  to  more  modern  examples,  we  shall  find  the  same  evils 
resulting  from  the  same  sources. 

The  Germanic  system  is  neither  adequate  to  the  external  defence, 
nor  internal  felicity  of  the  people,  the  doctrine  of  quotas  and  requi¬ 
sitions  flourishes  here.  Without  energy — without  stability— the 
empire  is  a  nerveless  body.  The  most  furious  conflicts,  and  the 
most  implacable  animosities  between  its  members,  strikingly  dis¬ 
tinguish  its  history.  Concert  and  co-operation  are  incompatible 
with  such  an  injudiciously  constructed  system. 

The  republic  of  the  Swiss  is  sometimes  instanced  for  its  stability, 
but  even  there,  dissentions  and  wars  of  a  bloody  nature,  have  been 
frequently  seen  between  the  cantons.  A  peculiar  coincidence  of  cir¬ 
cumstances  conti ibutes  to  the  continuance  of  their  political  connec¬ 
tion.  Their  feeble  association  owes  its  existence  to  their  singular 
situation.  There  is  a  schism  this  moment,  in  their  confederacy, 
which,  without  the  necessity  of  uniting  for  their  external  defence, 
lyould  immediately  produce  its  dissolution. 

The  confederate  government  of  Holland,  ie  a  further  confirmation 
of  the  characteristic  imbecility  of  such  governments.  From  the 
history  of  this  government  we  might  derive  lessons  of  the  most 
important  utility. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  quoted  sundry  passages  from  De  Witt,  res¬ 
pecting  the  people  of  Holland,  and  the  war  which  they  had  so  long 
supported  against  the  Spanish  monarch  :  shewing  the  impolitic  and 
injudicious  structure  of  their  confederacy;  that  it  was  entirely  des¬ 
titute  of  energy,  because  their  revenues  depended  chiefly  on  requi- 
vol.  3.  10 


146 


DEBATES. 


[Madisojt* 

I 

sitions;  that  during  that  long  war,  the  provinces  of  GuelderlancL, 
and  Overyssel  had  not  paid  their  respective  quotas,  hut  had  evaded* 
altogether,  their  payments;  inconsequence  of  which,  two  sevenths 
of  the  resources  of  the  community  had  never  been  brought  into  ac¬ 
tion,  nor  contributed  in  the  leest  toward  the  prosecution  of  the  war; 
that  the  fear  of  pressing  danger,  stimulated  Holland,  and  the  other 
provinces  to  pay  all  the  charges  of  the  war;  that  those  two  provinces 
had  continued  their  delinquences ;  that  the  province  of  Holland 
alone,  paid  more  than  all  the  rest ;  still  those  provinces  who  paid 
up  their  proportional  shares,  claimed  from  the  failing  states  the 
amounts  of  their  arrearages  ,  that  the  most  fatal  consequences  had 
nearly  resulted  from  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  those  claims  ;  and  from 
the  extreme  aversion  of  the  delinquent  states  to  discharge  even  their 
most  solemn  engagements  ;  that  there  are  existing  controversies  be¬ 
tween  the  provinces  on  this  account  at  present ;  and  to  add  to  |he 
evils  consequent  upon  requisitions,  that  unanimity  and  the  revision 
and  sanction  of  their  constituents,  were  necessary  to  give  validity  to 
the  decisions  of  the  states  general.] 

Mr.  MADISON  then  added — that  these  radical  defects  in  their 
confederacy  must  have  dissolved  their  association  long  ago,  were  it 
not  for  their  peculiar  position — circumscribed  in  a  narrow  territory ; 
surrounded  by  the  most  powerful  nations  in  the  world  ;  possessing 
peculiar  advantages  from  their  situation  ;  an  extensive  navigation 
and  a  powerful  navy — advantages  which  it  was  clearly  the  interest 
of  those  nations  to  diminish  or  deprive  them  of ;  and  that  their  late  un¬ 
happy  dissentions  were  manifestly  produced  by  the  vices  of  their  sys¬ 
tem.  He  then  continued — We  may  derive  much  benefit  from  the 
experience  of  that  unhappy  country.  Governments  destitute  of  en- 
ergy,  will  ever  produce  anarchy.  These  facts  are  worthy  the  most 
serious  consideration  of  every  gentleman  here.  Does  not  the  histo¬ 
ry  of  these  confederacies  coincide  with  the  lesson  drawn  from  our 
own  experience!  I  most  earnestly  pray  that  America  may  have 
sufficient  wisdom  to  avail  herself  of  the  instructive  information  she 
may  derive  from  a  contemplation  of  the  sources  of  their  misfortunes, 
and  that  she  may  escape  a  similar  fate  by  avoiding  the  causes  from 
which  their  infelicity  sprung.  If  the  general  government  is  to  depend 
on  the  voluntary  contribution  of  the  states  for  its  support,  dismem¬ 
berment  of  the  United  States  may  be  the  consequence.  In  cases, 
of  eminent  danger,  the  states  more  immediately  exposed  to  it,  would 
only  exert  themselves — those  remote  from  it,  would  be  too  supine 
to  interest  themselves  warmly  in  the  fate  of  those  whose  distresses 
they  did  not  immediately  perceive.  The  general  government  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  empowered  to  defend  the  whole  union. 

Must  we  not  suppose,  that  those  parts  of  America  which  are 
most  exposed,  will  first  be  the  scenes  of  war!  Those  nations  whose 
interest  is  incompatible  with  an  extension  of  our  power,  and  who  are 
jealous  of  our  resources  to  become  powerful  and  wealthy,  must  nat- 


VIRGINIA. 


14.7 


Madison.] 

urally  be  inclined  to  exert  every  means  to  prevent  our  becoming  for¬ 
midable.  Will  they  not  be  impelled  to  attack  the  most  exposed 
parts  of  the  union!  Will  not  their  knowledge  of  the  weakness  of 
our  government  stimulate  them  the  more  readily  to  such  an  attack! 
Those  parts  to  which  relief  can  be  afforded  with  most  difficulty,  are 
the  extremities  of  the  country,  and  will  be  the  first  objects  of  our  ene¬ 
mies.  The  general  government  having  no  resources  beyond  what 
are  adequate  to  its  existing  necessities,  will  not  be  able  to  afford 
any  effectual  succour  to  those  parts  which  may  be  invaded. 

America,  in  such  a  case,  would  palpably  perceive  the  danger  and 
folly  of  withholding  from  the  union,  a  power  sufficient  to  protect 
the  whole  territory  of  the  United  States.  Such  an  attack  is  far 
from  improbable,  and  if  it  be  actually  made,  it  is  difficult  to  con¬ 
ceive  a  possiblity  of  escaping  the  catastrophe  of  a  dismemberment. 
On  this  subject  we  may  receive  an  estimable  and  instructive  lesson 
from  an  American  confederacy.;  from  an  example  which  has  hap¬ 
pened  in  our  country,  and  which  applies  to  us  with  peculiar  force, 
being  most  analogous  to  our  situation.  I  mean  that  species  of  as¬ 
sociation  or  union  which  subsisted  in  New  England.  The  colonies 
of  Massachusetts,  Bristol,  Connecticut,  and  New  Hampshire,  were 
-confederated,  together. 

The  object  of  that  confederacy  was  primarily  to  defend  them¬ 
selves  against  the  inroads  and  depredations  of  the  Indians.  They 
had  a  common  council,  consisting  of  deputies  from  each  party,  with 
an  equality  of  suffrage  in  their  deliberations.  Tne  general  expen¬ 
ditures  and  charges  were  to  be  adequately  defrayed.  Its  powers 
were  very  similar  to  those  of  the  confederation.  Its  history  proves 
clearly,  that  a  government  founded  on  such  principles  must  ever 
disappoint  the  hopes  of  those  who  expect  its  operation  to  be  con¬ 
ducive  to  the  public  happiness. 

There  are  facts  on  record  to  prove,  that  instead  of  answering  the 
end  of  its  institution,  or  the  expectation  of  its  framers,  it  was  vio¬ 
lated  with  impunity,  and  only  regarded  when  it  coincided  perfectly 
with  the  views  and  immediate  interests  of  their  respective  parties. 

The  strongest  member  of  the  union  availed  itself  of  its  circum¬ 
stances  to  infringe  their  confederacy.  Massachusetts  refused  to  pay 
its  quotas.  In  the  w ar  between  Englandand  Holland,  it  was  found 
particularly  necessary  to  make  exertions  for  the  protection  of  that 
-country. 

Massachusetts  being  then  more  powerful  and  less  exposed  than 
the  other  colonies,  refused  its  contributions  to  the  general  defence. 
In  consequence  of  this,  the  common  council  remonstrated  against 
the  council  of  Massachusetts.  This  altercation  terminated  in  the 
dissolution  of  their  union.  Erorn  this  brief  account  of  a  system? 


DEBATES. 


148 


ADISON. 


perfectly  resembling  our  present  one  we  may  easily  divine  the  in¬ 
evitable  consequences  of  a  longer  adherence  to  the  latter. 

[Mr.  Madison  then  recapitulated  many  instances  of  the  preva¬ 
lent  persuasion  of  the  wisest  patriots  of  the  states,  that  the  safety  of 
all  America  depended  on  union ;  and  that  the  government  of  the  U. 
States  must  be  possessed  of  an  adequate  degree  of  energy,  or  that 
otherwise  their  connection  could  not  be  justly  denominated  an  union. 
He  likewise  enumerated  the  expedients  that  had  been  attempted  by 
the  people  of  America  to  form  an  intimate  association,  from  the 
meeting  at  New  York  in  the  year  1754,  downwards  that  their  senti¬ 
ments  on  this  subject  had  been  uniform,  both  in  their  colonial  and 
independent  conditions :  and  that  a  variety  of  causes  had  hitherto 
prevented  the  adoption  of  an  adequate  system.] 

He  then  continued  thus — If  we  take  experience  for  our  guide,  "ive 
shall  find  still  more  instructive  direction  on  this  subject.  The  weak¬ 
ness  of  the  existing  articles  of  the  union,  shewed  itself  during  the 
war.  It  has  manifested  itself  since  the  peace,  to  such  a  degree,  as 
admits  of  no  doubt  to  a  rational,  intelligent,  and  unbiassed  mind,  of 
the  necessity  of  alteration — nay,  this  necessity  is  obvious  to  all 
America— it  has  forced  itself  on  the  minds  of  the  people.  The 
committee  has  been  informed,  that  the  confederation  was  not  comple¬ 
ted  till  the  year  1781,  when  a  great  portion  of  the  war  was  ended, 
consequently  no  part  of  the  merit  of  the  antecedent  operations  of 
the  war  could  justly  be  attributed  to  that  system.  Its  debility  was 
perceived  almost  as  soon  as  it  was  put  in  operation.  A  recapitula¬ 
tion  of  the  proofs  which  have  been  experienced  of  its  inefficacy  is 
necessary.  It  is  most  notorious,  that  feebleness  universally  marked 
its  character.  Shall  we  be  safe  in  another  war  in  the  same  situation? 
That  instrument  required  the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  states, 
and  thereby  sacrificed  some  ot  our  best  privileges.  The  most  in¬ 
tolerable  and  unwarrantable  oppressions  were  committed  on  the  peo¬ 
ple  during  the  late  war.  The  gross  enormity  of  those  oppressions 
might  have  produced  the  most  serious  consequences,  were  it  not 
for  the  spirit  of  liberty,  which  preponderated  against  every  consider¬ 
ation. 

A  scene  of  injustice,  partiality  and  oppression,  may  bring  heav¬ 
enly  vengeance  on  any  people.  We  are  now  by  our  suflerincr  ex¬ 
piating  the  crimes  of  the  otherwise  glorious  revolution.  Is  it  not 
known  to  every  member  of  this  committee,  that  the  great  principles 
of  a  free  government,  were  reversed  through  the  whole  progress  of 
that  scene?  Was  not  every  state  harrassed?  Was  not  every  indi¬ 
vidual  oppressed  and  subjected  to  repeated  distresses?  Wa3  this 
right?  Was  it  a  proper  form  of  government,  that  warranted,  author¬ 
ized,  or  overlooked,  the  most  wanton  deprivation  of  property?  Had 
the  government  been  vested  with  complete  power  to  procure  a  regu- 


Madison.  J  VIRGINIA.  149 

lar  and  Jlequate  supply  of  revenue,  those  oppressive  measures 
would  have  been  unnecessary.  But,  sir,  can  it  be  supposed  that  a 
repetition  of  such  measures  would  ever  be  acquiesced  in'?  Can  a  go¬ 
vernment  that  stands  in  need  of  such  measures  secure  the  liberty  or 
promote  the  happiness  or  glory  of  any  country?  If  we  do  not  change 
this  system,  consequences  must  ensue  that  gentlemen  do  not  now 
apprehend.  If  other  testimony  were  necessary,  I  might  appeal  to 
that  which  I  am  sure  is  very  Weighty,  but  which  I  mention  with  re¬ 
luctance.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  the  man  who  had  the  most 
extensive  acquaintance  with  the  niatuie  of  the  country,  who  well  un¬ 
derstood  its  interests,  and  who  had  given  the  most  unequivocal  and 
most  brilliant  proofs  of  the  attachment  to  its  welfare — when  he  laid 
down  his  arms,  wherewith  he  had  so  nobly  and  successfully  defend¬ 
ed  his  country  publicly  testified  his  disapprobation  of  the  present 
system ;  and  suggested  that  some  alteration  was  necessary  to  ren¬ 
der  it  adequate  to  the  security  of  our  happiness.  I  did  not  introduce 
that  great  name  to  bias  any  gentleman  here.  Much  as  I  admire  and 
revere  the  man,  I  consider  these  members  as  not  to  be  actuated  by 
the  influence  of  any  man  ;  but  I  introduced  him  as  a  respectable  wit¬ 
ness  to  prove  that  the  articles  of  the  confederation  were  inadequate, 
and  that  we  must  resort  to  something  else.  His  modesty  did  not 
point  out  what  ought  to  be  done,  but  said,  that  some  great  change 
was  necessary.  But,  sir,  testimony  if  wished  for,  may  be  found  in 
abundance,  and  numerous  conclusive  reasons  urged  for  this  change. 
Experience  was  daily  producing  such  irresistible  proofs  of  the  de¬ 
fects  of  this  system,  this  commonwenlth  was  induced  to  exert  her 
influence  to  meliorate  it :  she  began  that  noble  work,  in  which  I 
hope  she  will  persist :  she  proposed  to  revise  it — her  proposition 
met  with  that  concurrence,  which  that  of  a  respectable  party  will 
always  meet.  I  am  sure  if  demonstration  were  necessary  on  the 
part  of  this  commonwealth,  reasons  have  been  abundantly  heard  in 
the  course  of  this  debate,  manifold  and  cogent  enough,  not  only  to 
operate  conviction;  but  to  disgust  an  attentive  hearer.  Recollect 
the  resolution  of  the  year  1784.  It  was  then  found  that  the  whole 
burthen  of  the  union  was  sustained  by  a  few  states.  This  state  was 
likely  to  be  saddled  with  a  very  disproportionate  share.  That  ex¬ 
pedient  was  proposed  (to  obviate  this  inconvenience)  which  has 
been  placed  in  its  true  light.  It  has  been  painted  in  sufficient  hor¬ 
rors  by  the  honorable  gentleman  who  spoke  last. 

I  agree  with  the  honorable  gentleman,  Mr  Henry,  that  national 
splendour  and  glory  are  not  our  objects — but  does  he  distinguish 
between  what  will  render  us  secure  and  happy  at  home,  and  what 
will  render  us  respectable  abroad?  If  we  be  free  and  happy  at 
home,  we  shall  be  respectable  abroad. 


150 


DEBATES. 


[Mad  ison*. - 

The  confederation  is  so  notoriously  feeble,  that  foreigi^nations 
afe  unwilling  to  form  any  treaties  with  us — they  are  apprised  that' 
our  general  government  cannot  perform  any  of  its  engagements ; 
but,  that  they  may  be  violated  at  pleasure  by  any  of  the  states. 
Our  violation  of  treaties  already  entered  into,  proves  this  truth  un¬ 
equivocally.  No  nation ’will,  therefore,  make  any  stipulations  with 
congress,  conceding  any  advantages  of  importance  to  us  :  they  will 
be  the  more  averse  to  entering  into  engagements  with  us,  as  the 
imbecility  of  our  government  enables  them  to  derive  many  advanta¬ 
ges  from  our  trade,  without  granting  us  any  return.  But  were  this 
country  united  by  proper  bands,  in  addition  to  other  great  advanta¬ 
ges,  we  could  form  very  beneficial  treaties  with  foreign  states.  But 
this  can  never  happen  withoufa  change  in  our  system.  Were  we 
not  laughed  at  by  the  minister  of  that  nation,  from  which  we  may 
be  able  yet  to  extort  some  of  the  most  salutary  measures  for  this 
country'?  Were  we  not  told  that  it  was  necessary  to  temporize  till 
our  government  acquired  consistency?  Will  any  nation  relinquish 
national  advantages  to  us?1  You  will  be  greatly  disappointed,  if 
you  expect  any  such  good  effects  from  this  contemptible  system. 
Let  us  recollect  our  conduct  to  that  country  from  which  we  have  re¬ 
ceived  the  most  friendly  aid.  How  have  we  dealt  with  that  benev¬ 
olent  ally?  Have  we  complied  with  our  most  sacred  obligations  to 
that  nation?  Have  we  paid  the  interest  punctually  from  year  to 
year?  Is  it  not  the  interest  accumulating,  while  not  a  shilling  is 
discharged  of  the  principal?  The  magnanimity  and  forbearance  of 
that  ally  are  so  great,  that  she  has  not  called  upon  us  for  her 
claims,  even  in  her  own  distress  and  necessity.  This,  sir,  is  an 
additional  motive  to  increase  our  exertions.  At  this  moment  of  time 
a  very  considerable  amount  is  due  from  us  to  that  country  and 
others. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  mentioned'  the  amount  of  the  debts  due  to 
different  foreign  nations.] 

We  have  been  obliged  to  borrow  money,  even  to  pay  the  inte¬ 
rest  of  our  debts.  This  is  a  ruinous  and  most  disgraceful  expe¬ 
dient.  Is  this  a  situation  on  which  America  can  rely  for  securi¬ 
ty  and  happiness?  How  are  we  to  extricate  ourselves?  The 
honorable  member  told  us,  we  might  rely  on  the  punctuality  and 
friendship  of  the  states,  and  that  they  will  discharge  their  quotas 
for  the  future.  The  contributions  of  the  states  have  been  found 
inadequate  from  the  beginning,  and  are  diminishing  instead  of  in¬ 
creasing.  From  the  month  of  June  1787,  till  June  1788,  they 
have  only  paid  276,641  dollars  into  the  federal  treasury  for  the 
purposes  of  supporting  the  national  government,  and  discharging 
the  interest  of  the  national  debts :  a  sum  so  very  insufficient,  that 


VIRGINIA, 


Henry.] 


151 


It  must  greatly  alarm  the  friends  of  their  country.  Suggestions 
and  strong  assertions  dissipate  before  these  facts.  I  shall  no  lon¬ 
ger  fatigue  the  committee  at  this  time,  but  will  resume  the  sub¬ 
ject  as  early  as  I  can. 

Mr  HENRY.  I  have  thought,  and  still  think,  that  a  full  in¬ 
vestigation  of  the  actual  situation  of  America,  ought  to  precede 
any  decision  on  this  great  and  important  question.  That  govern¬ 
ment  is  no  more  than  a  choice  among  evils,  is  acknowledged  by 
the  most  intelligent  among  mankind,  and  hasr  been  a  standing 
maxim  for  ages.  If  it  be  demonstrated  that  the  adoption  of  the  new 
plan  is  a  little  or  a  trifling  evil,  then,  sir,  1  acknowledge  that  adop¬ 
tion  ought  to  follow :  but,  sir,  if  this  be  a  truth  that  its  adoption  may 
entail  misery  on  the  free  people  of  this  country,  I  then  insist,  that 
rejection  ought  to  follow:  gentlemen  strongly  urge  its  adoption  will 
be  a  mighty  benefit  to  us :  but,  sir,  I  am  made  of  so  incredulous  ma¬ 
terials,  that  assertions  and  declarations  do  not  satisfy  me.  I  must 
be  convinced,  sir.  1  shall  retain  my  infidelity  on  that  subject,  till  I 
see  our  liberties  secured  in  a  manner  perfectly  satisfactory  to  my 
understanding. 

There  are  certain  maxims  by  which  every  wise  and  enlightened 
people  will  regulate  their  conduct.  There  are  certain  political  max¬ 
ims  which  no  free  people  ought  ever  to  abandon  :  maxims  of  which 
the  observance  is  essential  to  the  security  of  happiness.  It  is  im¬ 
piously  irritating  the  avenging  hand  of  heaven,  when  a  people  who 
are  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  freedom,  launch  out  into  the  wide  ocean 
of  human  affairs,  and  desert  those  maxims  which  alone  can  preserve 
liberty.  Such  maxims,  humble  as  they  are,  are  those  only  which 
can  render  a  nation' safe  or  formidable.  Poor  little  humble  repub¬ 
lican  maxims  have  attracted  the  admiration  and  engaged  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  virtuous  and  wise  in  all  nations,  and  have  stood  the  shock 
of  ages.  We  do  not  now  admit  the  validity  of  maxims,  which  we 
once  delighted  in.  We  have  since  adopted  maxims  of  a  different 
but  more  refined  nature :  new  maxims  which  tend  to  the  prostration 
of  republicanism. 

We  have  one,  sir,  that  all  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent , 
and  have  certain  inherent  rights ,  of  which,  when  they  enter  into  society , 
they  cannot  by  any  compact  deprive  or  divest  their  posterity.  We 
have  a  set  of  maxims  of  the  same  spirit,  which  must  be  beloved  by 
every  friend  to  liberty,  to  virtue,  to  mankind — our  bill  of  rights  con¬ 
tains  those  admirable  maxims. 

Now,  sir,  I  say,  let  us  consider,  whether  the  picture  given  of 
American  affairs  ought  to  drive  us  from  those  beloved  maxims. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  Governor  Randolph,  has  said,  that  it  is 
too  late  in  the  day  for  us  to  reject  this  new  plan.  That  system 


152  DEBATES.  [HekrV.- 

which  Was  once  execrated  by  the  honorable  member,  must  now  be' 
adopted,  let  its  defects  be  ever  so  glaring.  That  honorable  member 
will  not  accuse  me  of  want  of  candor,  when  I  cast  in  my  mind 
what  he  has  given  the  public,*  and1  compare  it  to  what  has  happen-1 
ed  since.  If  seems  to  me  very  strange  and  unaccountable,  that 
that  which  was  the  object  of  his  execration,  should  now  receive  his 
encomiums.  Something  extraordinary  must  have  operated  so  great 
a  change  in  his  opinion.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day!  Gentlemen 
must  excuse  me,  if  they  should  declare  again  and  again,  that  it  was 
too  late,  and  I  should  think  differently.  I  never  can  believe,  sir, 
that  it  is  too  late  to  save  all  that  is  precious  if  it  be  proper,  and  in¬ 
dependently  of  every  external  consideration,  wisely  constructed,  let 
us  receive  it :  but,  sir,  shall  its  adoption  by  eight  states  induce  us 
to  receive  it,  if  it  be  replete  with  the  most  dangerous  defects?  They 
urge  that  subsequent  amendments  are  safer  than  previous  amend¬ 
ments,  and  that  they  will  answer  the  same  ends. 

At  present  we  have  our  liberties  and  privileges  in  our  own  hands. 
Let  us  not  relinquish  them.  Let  us  not  adopt  this  system  till  we 
see  them  secure.  There  is  some  small  possibility,  that  should  we 
follow  the  conduct  of  Massachusetts,  amendments  might  be  obtain¬ 
ed.  There  is  a  small  possibility  of  amending  any  government ;  but, 
sir,  shall  we  abandon  our  most  inestimable  rights,  and  rest  their  se¬ 
curity  oh  a  mere  possibility?  The  gentleman  fears  the  loss  of  the 
union*  If  eight  states  have  ratified  it  unamended  ;  and  we  should 
rashly  imitate  their  precipitate  example,  do  we  not  thereby  disunite 
from  several  other  states?  Shall  those  who  have  risked  their  lives 
for  the  sake  of  union,  be  at  once  thrown  out  of  it?  If  it  be  amended 
every  state  will  accede  to  it ;  but  by  an  imprudent  adoption  in  its 
defective  and  dangerous  state,  a  schism  must  inevitably  be  the  con¬ 
sequence  :  I  can  never,  therefore,  consent  to  hazard  our  most  una¬ 
lienable  rights  on  an  absolute  uncertainty. 

You  are  told  there  is  no  peace,  although  you  fondly  flatter  your¬ 
selves  that  all  is  peace — no  peace — a  general  cry  and  alarm  in  the 
country — commerce,  riches,  and  wealth,  vanished — citizens  going 
to  seek  comforts  in  other  parts  of  the  world — laws  insulted — many 
instances  of  tyrannical  legislation.  These  things,  sir,  are  new  to 
me.  He  has  made  the  discovery— as  to  the  administration  of  jus¬ 
tice,  I  believe  that  failures  in  commerce,  &c.  cannot  be  attributed  to 
it.  My  age  enables  me  t©  recollect  its  progress  under  the  old  go¬ 
vernment.  I  can  justify  it  by  saying,  that  it  continues  in  the  same 
manner  in  this  state,  as  it  did  under  the  former  government.  As  to 
other  parts  of  the  continent,  I  refer  that  to  other  gentlemen.  As  to 

*  Alluding  to  his  excellency’s  letter  on  that  subject  to  the  speaker  of  the 
house  of  delegates — Vol  1.  p.  518. 


VIRGINIA. 


153 


Henay.J 

the  ability  of  those  who  administer  it,  I  believe  they  would  not  suf¬ 
fer  by  a  comparison  with  those  who  administered  it  under  the  royal 
authority.  Where  is  the  cause  of  complaint  if  the  wealthy  go 
away?  Is  this,  added  to  the  other  circumstances,  of  such  enormity, 
and  does  it  bring  such  danger  over  this  commonwealth  as  to  war¬ 
rant  so  important,  and  so  awful  a  change,  in  so  precipitate  a  man¬ 
ner?  As  to  insults  offered  to  the  laws,  I  know  of  none.  In  this  re¬ 
spect,  I  believe  this  commonwealth  would  not  suffer  by  a  compari¬ 
son  with  the  former  government.  The  laws  are  as  well  executed, 
and  as  patiently  acquiesced  in,  as  they  were  under  the  royal  admin¬ 
istration*  Compare  the  situation  of  the  country— compare  that  of 
our  citizens  to  what  they  were  then,  and  decide  whether  persons 
and  property  are  not  as  safe  and  secure  as  they  were  at  that  time. 
Is  there  a  man  in  this  commonwealth,  whose  person  can  be  insult-' 
ed  with  impunity?  Cannot  redress  be  had  here  for  personal  insults 
or  injuries,  as  well  as  in  any  part  of  the  worlds— as  well  as  in  those 
countries  where  aristocrats  and  monarchs  triumph  and  reign?  Is  not 
the  protection  of  property  in  full  operation  here?  The  contrary  can¬ 
not  with  truth  be  charged  on  this  commonwealth.  Those  severe 
charges  which  are  exhibited  against  it,  appear  to  be  totally  ground¬ 
less.  On  a  fair  investigation,  we  shall  be  found  to  be  surrounded 
by  no  real  dangers. 

We  have  the  animating  fortitude  and  persevering  alacrity  of  re¬ 
publican  men,  to  carry  us  through  misfortunes  and  calamities.  It 
is  the  fortune  of  a  republic  to  be  able  to  withstand  the  stormy  ocean 
of  human  vicissitudes.  I  know  of  no  danger  awaiting  us.  Public 
and  private  security  are  to  be  found  here  in  the  highest  degree.  Sir, 
it  is  the  fortune  of  a  free  people,  not  to  be  intimidated  by  imaginary 
dangers.  Fear  is  the  passion  of  slaves.  Our  political  and  natural 
hemisphere  are  now  equally  tranquil.  Let  us  recollect  the  awful 
magnitude  of  the  subject  of  our  deliberation.  Let  us  consider  the 
latent  consequences  of  an  erroneous  decision — -and  let  not  our  minds 
be  led  away  by  unfair  misrepresentations  and  uncandid  suggestions. 
There  have  been  many  instances  of  uncommon  lenity  and  temper¬ 
ance  used  in  the  exercise  of  power  in  this  commonwealth.  I  could 
call  your  recollection  to  many  that  happened  during  the  war  and 
since— but  every  gentleman  here  must  be  apprised  of  them. 

The  honorable  member  has  given  you  an  elaborate  account  of 
what  he  judges  tyrannical  legislation,  and  an  ex  post  facto  law  (in 
the  ca$e  of  Josiah  Philips.)  He  has  misrepresented  the  facts.  That 
man  was  not  executed  by  a  tyrannical  stroke  of  power.  Nor  was 
he  a  Socrates.  He  was  a  fugitive  murderer  and  an  outlaw — a  man 
who  commanded  an  infamous  banditti,  and  at  a  time  when  the  war 
was  at  the  most  perilous  stage.  He  committed  the  most  cruel  and 


154 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 

shocking  barbarities.  He  was  an  enemy  to  the  human  name. 
Those  who  declare  war  against  the  human  race,  may  be  struck  out  of 
existence,  as  soon  as  they  are  apprehended.  He  was  not  executed 
according  to  those  beautiful  legal  ceremonies  which  are  pointed  out 
by  the  laws,  in  criminal  cases.  The  enormity  of  his  crimes  did  not 
entitle  him  to  it.  I  am  truly  a  friend  to  legal  forms  and  methods  : 
but,  sir,  the  occasion  warranted  the  measure.  A  pirate,  an  outlaw, 
or  a  common  enemy  to  all  mankind,  may  be  put  to  death  at  any  time. 
It  is  justified  by  the  laws  of  nature  and  nations. 

The  honorable  member  tells  us  then,  that  there  are  burnings  and 
discontents  in  the  hearts  of  our  citizens  in  general,  and  that  they 
are  dissatisfied  with  their  government.  I  have  no  doubt  the  honora-N 
ble  member  believes  this  to  be  the  case,  because  he  says  so.  But 
I  have  the  comfortable  assurance,  that  it  is  a  certain  fact,  that  it  is 
not  so.  The  middle  and  lower  ranks  of  people  have  not  those  illu¬ 
minated  ideas,  which  the  well-born  are  so  happily  possessed  of — 
they  cannot  so  readily  perceive  latent  objects.  The  microscopic 
eyes  of  modern  statesmen  can  see  abundance  of  defects  in  old  sys¬ 
tems  ;  and  their  illuminated  imaginations  discover  the  necessity  of 
a  change.  They  are  captivated  by  the  parade  of  the  number  ten- — 
the  charms  of  the  ten  miles  square.  Sir,  I  fear  this  change  will  ul¬ 
timately  lead  to  our  ruin.  My  fears  are  not  the  force  of  imagination 
— they  are  but  too  well  founded.  I  tremble  for  my  country  ;  but, 
sir,  I  trust,  I  rely,  and  I  am  confident,  that  this  political  speculation 
has  not  taken  so  strong  a  hold  of  men’s  minds  as  some  would  make 
us  believe. 

The  dangers  which  may  arise  from  our  geographical  situation, 
will  be  more  properly  considered  awhile  hence.  At  present  what 
may  be  surmised  on  the  subject,  with  respect  to  the  adjacent  states, 
is  merely  visionary.  Strength,  sir,  is  a  relative  term.  When  I  re¬ 
flect  on  the  natural  force  of  those  nations  that  might  be  induced  to 
attack  us,  and  consider  the  difficulty  of  the  attempt,  and  uncertainty 
of  the  success,  and  compare  thereto  the  relative  strength  of  our 
country,  I  say  that  we  are  strong.  We  have  no  cause  to  fear  from 
that  quarter — we  have  nothing  to  dread  from  our  neighboring  states. 
The  superiority  of  our  cause  would  give  us  an  advantage  over  them, 
were  they  so  unfriendly  or  rash  as  to  attack  us.  As  to  that  part  of 
the  community,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  spoke  of  as  being 
in  danger  of  being  separated  from  us  :  what  excitement  or  induce¬ 
ment  could  its  inhabitants  have  to  wish  such  an  event?  It  is  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  doubt  whether  they  would  derive  any  advantage  to  themselves, 
or  be  any  loss  to  us  by  such  a  separation.  Time  has  been,  and  may 
yet  come,  when  they  will  find  it  their  advantage  and  true  interest  to 
be  united  with  us.  There  is  no  danger  of  a  dismemberment  of  our 


fitlNRY.] 


VIRGINIA. 


155 


country,  unless  a  constitution  be  adopted  which  will  enable  the  go¬ 
vernment  to  plant  enemies  on  our  backs.  By  the  confederation,  the 
rights  of  territory  are  secured.  No  treaty  can  be  made  without  the 
consent  of  nine  states.  While  the- consent  of  nine  states  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  the  cession  of  territory,  you  are  safe.  If  it  be  put  in  the 
power  of  a  les£  number,  you  will  most  infallibly  loose  the  Missis¬ 
sippi.  As  long  as  we  can  preserve  our  unalienable  rights,  we  are  in 
safety.  This  new  constitution  will  involve  in  its  operation  the  loss 
of  the  navigation  of  that  valuable  river. 

The  honorable  gentleman  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  Spanish  trans¬ 
actions.  A  treaty  had  been  nearly  entered  into  with  Spain,  to  relin¬ 
quish  that  navigation.  That  relinquishment  would  absolutely  have 
taken  place,  had  the  consent  of  seven  states  been  sufficient.  The 
honorable  gentleman  told  us  then,  that  eight  states  having  adopted 
the  system,  we  cannot  suppose  they  will  recede  on  our  account.  I 
know  not  what  they  may  do,  but  this  I  know,  that  a  people  of  infinite¬ 
ly  less  importance,  than  those  of  Virginia  stood  the  terror  of  war. 
Vermont,  sir,  withstood  the  terror  of  thirteen  states.  Maryland  did 
not  accede  to  the  confederation  till  the  year  1781.  These  two  states, 
feeble  as  they  are  comparatively  to  us,  were  not  afraid  of  the  whole 
union.  Did  either  of  these  states  perish!  No,  sir,  they  were  admitted 
freely  into  the  union.  Will  not  Virginia  then  be  admitted?  I  flat¬ 
ter  myself  that  those  states  who  have  ratified  the  new  plan  of  govern¬ 
ment  will  open  their  arms  and  cheerfully  receive  us,  although  we 
should  propose  certain  amendments  as  the  conditions  on  which  we 
should  ratify  it.  During  the  late  war,  all  the  states  were  in  pursuit 
of  the  same  object.  To  obtain  that  object  they  made  the  most  stren¬ 
uous  exertions.  They  did  not  suffer  trivial  considerations  to  impede 
its  acquisition.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  if  the  smallest  states  in 
the  union  were  admitted  into  it,  after  having  unreasonably  procrasti¬ 
nated  their  accession,  the  greatest  and  most  mighty  state  in  the 
union,  will  be  easily  admitted,  when  her  reluctance  to  an  immediate 
accession  to  this  system  is  founded  on  the  most  reasonable  grounds. 
When  I  call  this  the  most  mighty  state  in  the  union,  do  I  not  speak 
the  truth?  Does  not  Virginia  surpass  every  state  in  the  union,  in 
number  of  inhabitants,  extent  of  territory,  felicity  of  position,  and 
affluence  and  wealth?  Some  infatuation  hangs  over  men’s  minds, 
that  they  will  inconsiderately  precipitate  into  measures  the  most  im¬ 
portant,  and  give  not  a  moments  deliberation  to  others,  nor  pay  any 
respect  to  their  opinions.  Is  this  federalism?  Are  these  the  beloved 
effects  of  the  federal  spirit,  that  its  votaries  will  never  accede  to  the 
just  propositions  of  others?  Sir,  were  there  nothing  objectionable 
in  it,  but  that  I  would  vote  against  it.  I  desire  to  have  nothing  to 
do  with  such  men  as  will  obstinately  refuse  to  ehange  their  opinions. 


156 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 

Are  our  opinions  not  to  be  regarded1?  I  hope  that  you  will  recol- 
lect,  that  you  are  going  to  join  with  men  who  will  pay  no  respect, 
even  to  this  state. 

Switzerland  consists  of  thirteen  cantons  expressly  confederated 
for  national  defence.  They  have  stood  the  shock  of  400  years ; 
that  country  has  enjoyed  internal  tranquility  most  of  that  long  pe¬ 
riod.  Their  dissentions  have  been,  comparatively  to  those  of  other 
countries,  very  few.  What  has  passed  in  the  neighbouring  coun¬ 
tries?  War,  dissentions,  and  intrigues.  Germany  involved  in  the 
most  deplorable  civil  war,  thirty  years  successively — continually 
convulsed  with  intestine  divisions,  and  harrassed  by  foreign  wars. 
France  with  her  mighty  monarchy  perpetually  at  war.  Compare 
the  peasants  of  Switzerland  with  those  of  any  other  mighty  nation  : 
you  will  find  them  far  more  happy — for  one  civil  war  among  them, 
there  have  been  five  or  six  among  other  nations — their  attachment 
to  their  country  and  freedom — their  resolute  intrepidity  in  their 
defence— the  consequent  security  and  happiness  which  they  have 
enjoyed,  and  the  respect  and  awe  which  these  things  produced  in 
the  bordering  nations,  have  signalized  those  republicans.  Their 
valor,  sir,  has  been  active ;  every  thing  that  sets  in  motion  the 
springs  of  the  human  heart,  engaged  them  to  that  protection  of  their 
inestimable  privileges.  They  have  not  only  secured  their  own  lib¬ 
erty,  but  have  been  the  arbiters  of  the  fate  of  other  people.  Here, 
sir,  contemplate  the  triumph  of  the  republican  governments  over 
the  pride  of  monarchy.  I  acknowledge,  sir,  that  the  necessity  of 
national  defence  has  prevailed  in  invigorating  their  councils  and 
arms,  and  has  been  in  a  considerable  degree  the  means  of  keeping 
these  honest  people  together.  But,  sir,  they  have  had  wisdom  enough 
to  keep  together,  and  render  themselves  formidable.  Their  heroism 
is  proverbial.  They  would  heroically  fight  for  their  government, 
and  their  laws.  One  of  the  illumined  sons  of  these  times  would 
not  fight  for  those  objects.  Those  virtuous  and  simple  people  have 
not  a  mighty  and  splendid  President — nor  enormously  expensive 
navies  and  armies  to  support.  No,  sir,  those  brave  republicans 
have  acquired  their  reputation  no  less  by  their  undaunted  intrepidity 
than  by  the  wisdom  of  their  frugal  and  economical  policy.  Let  us 
follow  their  example,  and  be  equally  happy.  The  honorable  mem¬ 
ber  advises  us  to  adopt  a  measure  which  will  destroy  our  bill  of 
rights.  For,  after  having  his  picture  of  nations,  and  his  reasons 
for  abandoning  all  the  powers  retained  to  the  states  by  the  confede¬ 
ration,  I  am  more  firmly  persuaded  of  the  impropriety  of  adopting 
this  new  plan  in  its  present  shape. 

I  had  doubts  of  the  power  of  those  who  went  to  the  conven¬ 
tion  ,  but  now  we  are  possessed  of  it,  let  us  examine  it.  When 


VIRGINIA. 


157 


Henry.] 

we  trusted  the  great  object  of  revising  the  confederation  to  the  great¬ 
est,  and  best,  and  most  enlightened  of  our  citizens,  we  thought  their 
deliberations  would  have  been  solely  confined  to  that  revision.  In¬ 
stead  of  this,  a  new  system,  totally  diffeient  in  its  nature,  and  vest¬ 
ing  the  most  extensive  powers  in  congress  is  presented.  Will  the 
ten  men,  you  are  to  send  t'o  congress,  be  more  worthy  than  those 
seven  were1?  If  power  grew  so  rapidly  in  their  hands,  what  may  it 
not  do  in  the  hands  of  others?  If  those  who  go  from  this  state 
will  find  power  accompanied  with  temptation,  our  situation  must  be 
truly  critical.  When  about  forming  a  government,  if  we  mistake 
the  principles,  or  commit  any  other  error,  the  very  circumstance 
promises  that  power  will  be  abused.  The  greatest  caution  and  cir¬ 
cumspection  are  therefore  necessary — nor  does  this  proposed  sys¬ 
tem,  to  its  investigation  here,  deserve  the  least  charity. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  national  government  is 
without  energy.  I  perfectly  agree  with  him — and  when  he  cried 
out,  Union ,  I  agree  with  him  :  but  I  tell  him  not  to  mistake  the  end 
for  the  means.  The  end  is  union — the  most  capital  means,  I  sup¬ 
pose,  are  an  army  and  navy :  on  a  supposition,  I  will  acknowledge 
this ;  still  the  bare  act  of  agreeing  to  that  paper,  though  it  may  have 
an  amazing  influence,  will  not  pay  our  millions.  There  must  be 
things  to  pay  debts.  What  these  things  are,  or  how  they  are  to  be 
produced,  must  be  determined  by  our  political  wisdom  and  economy. 

The  honorable  gentleman  alleges,  that  previous  amendments  will 
prevent  the  junction  of  our  riches  from  producing  great  profits  and 
emoluments,  which  would  enable  us  to  pay  our  public  debts,  by  exclu¬ 
ding  iis  from  the  union.  I  believe,  sir,  that  a  previous  ratification  of  a 
system  notoriously  and  confessedly  defective,  will  endanger  our 
riches — our  liberty — our  all.  Its  defects  are  acknowledged — they 
cannot  be  denied.  The  reason  offered  by  the  honorable  gentleman 
for  adopting  this  defective  system,  is  the  adoption  by  the  eight 
states.  I  say,  sir,  that  if  we  present  nothing  but  what  is  reasona¬ 
ble  in  the  shape  of  amendments  they  will  receive  us.  Union  is  as 
necessary  for  them  as  for  us.  Will  they  then  be  so  unreasonable  as 
not  to  join  us?  If  such  be  their  disposition,  I  am  happy  to  know  it 
in  time. 

The  honorable  member  then  observed,  that  nations  will  expend 
millions  for  commercial  advantages — that  is,  that  they  will  deprive 
you  of  every  advantage  if  they  can.  Apply  this  another  way.  Their 
cheaper  way — instead  of  laying  out  millions  in  making  war  upon 
you,  will  be  to  corrupt  your  senators.  I  know  that  if  they  be  not 
above  all  price,  they  may  make  a  sacrifice  of  our  commercial  inte¬ 
rests.  They  may  advise  your  President  to  make  a  treaty  that  will 
not  only  sacrifice  all  your  commercial  interests,  but  throw  prostrate 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


your  bill  of  rights.  Does  he  fear  that  their  ships  will  not  number 
ours  on  the  ocean,  or  that  nations  whose  interest  comes  in  contact 
with  ours,  in  the  progress  of  their  guilt,  will  perpetuate  the  vilest 
expedients  to  exclude  us  from  a  participation  in  commercial  advan¬ 
tages!  Does  he  advise  us,  in  order  to  avoid  this  evil,  to  adopt  a 
constitution,  which  will  enable  such  nations  to  obtain  their  ends  by 
the  more  easy  mode  of  contaminating  the  principles  of  our  senators'? 
Sir,  if  our  senators  will  not  be  corrupted,  it  will  be  because  they 
will  be  good  men  ;  and  not  because  the  constitution  provides  against 
corruption,  for  there  is  no  real  check  secured  in  it,  and  the  most 
abandoned  and  profligate  acts  may  with  impunity  be  committed  by 
them. 

With  respect  to  Maryland,  what  danger  from  thence!  I  know 
none.  I  have  not  heard  of  any  hostility  premeditated  or  committed. 
Nine-tenths  of  the  people  have  not  heard  of  it.  Those  who  are  so 
happy  -as  to  be  illumined,  have  not  informed  their  fellow  citizens  of 
it.  I  am  so  valiant  as  to  say,  that  no  danger  can  come  from  that 
source,  sufficient  to  make  me  abandon  my  republican  principles. 
The  honorable  gentleman  ought  to  have  recollected,  that  there  were 
no  tyrants  in  America,  as  there  are  in  Europe.  The  citizens  of  re¬ 
publican  borders  are  only  terrible  to  tyrants — instead  of  being  dan¬ 
gerous  to  one  another,  they  mutually  support  one  anothers  liberties. 
We  might  be  confederated  with  the  adopting  states,  without  ratify¬ 
ing  this  system.  No  form  of  government  renders  a  people  more  for¬ 
midable.  A  confederacy  of  states  joined  together,  becomes  strong 
as  the  United  Netherlands.  The  government  of  Holland,  execrated 
as  it  is,  proves  that  the  present  confederation  is  adequate  to  every 
purpose  of  human  association.  There  are  seven  provinces  confede¬ 
rated  together  for  a  long  time,  containing  numerous  opulent  cities, 
and  many  of  the  finest  ports  in  the  world.  The  recollection  of  the 
situation  of  that  country,  would  make  me  execrate  monarchy.  The 
singular  felicity  and  success  of  that  people  are  unparallelled — free  ¬ 
dom  has  done  miracles  there  in  reclaiming  land  from  the  ocean.  It 
is  the  richest  spot  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Have  they  no  men  or 
.money.  Have  they  no  fleets  or  armies!  Have  they  no  arts  or  sci¬ 
ences  among  them!  How  did  they  repel  the  attacks  of  the  greatest 
nations  in  the  world!  How  have  they  acquired  their  amazing  influ¬ 
ence  and  power!  Did  .they  consolidate  government,  to  effect  these 
purposes  as  we  do!  No,  sir,  they  have  trampled  over  every  obsta¬ 
cle  and  difficulty  ;  and  have  arrived  at  the  summit  of  political  feli¬ 
city,  and  of  uncommon  opulence,  by  means  of  a  confederacy  ;  that 
very  government  which  gentlemen  affect  to  despise.  They  have, 
Sir,  avoided  a  consolidation  as  the  greatest  of  evils.  They  have 
jlately,  it  is  true,  made  one  advance  to  that  fatal  progression.  This 


VIRGINIA. 


159 


Henry.] 

misfortune  burst  on  them  by  iniquity  and  artifice.  That  stadtholder 
that  executive  magistrate,  contrived  it,  in  conjunction  with  other 
European  nations.  It  was  not  the  choice  of  the  people.  Was  it 
owing  to  his  energy  that  this  happened]  If  two  provinces  have  paid 
nothing,  what  have  not  the  rest  done!  And  have  not  these  two  pro¬ 
vinces  made  other  exertions'?  Ought  they  to  avoid  this  inconve¬ 
nience,  to  have  consolidated  their  different  states,  and  have  a  ten 
miles  square?  Compare  that  little  spot,  nurtured  by  liberty,  with 
the  fairest  country  in  the  world.  Does  not  Holland  possess  a  pow¬ 
erful  navy  and  army,  and  a  full  treasury?  They  did  not  acquire 
these  by  debasing  the  principles  and  trampling  on  the  rights  of  their 
citizens.  Sir,  they  acquired  these  by  their  industry,  economy,  and 
by  the  freedom  of  their  government.  Their  commerce  is  the  most 
extensive  in  Europe — their  credit  is  unequalled — their  felicity  will 
be  an  external  monument  of  the  blessings  of  liberty  :  every  nation 
in  Europe  is  taught  by  them  what  they  are,  and  what  they  ought  to 
be.  The  contrast  between  those  nations  and  this  happy  people,  is 
the  most  splendid  spectacle  for  republicans — the  greatest  cause  of 
exultation  and  triumph  to  the  sons  of  freedom.  While  other  nations 
precipitated  by  the  rage  of  ambition  or  folly,  have,  in  the  pursuit  of 
the  most  magnificent  projects,  Ti vetted  the  fetters  of  bondage  on 
themselves  and  descendants,  these  republicans  secured  their  politi¬ 
cal  happiness  and  freedom,  Where  is  there  a  nation  to  be  compared 
to  them?  Where  is  there  now,  or  where  was  there  ever  a  nation 
of  so  small  a  territory,  and  so  few  in  number,  so  powerful — so  weal¬ 
thy — so  happy?  Wlrat  is  the  cause  of  this  superiority?  Liberty, 
sir,  the  freedom  of  their  government.  Though  they  are  now*  unhap¬ 
py  in  some  degree  consolidated,  yet  they  have  my  acclamations, 
when  put  in  contrast  with  those  millions  of  their  fellow-men  who 
lived  and  died  like  slaves.  The  danger  of  a  consolidation  ought  to 
be  guarded  against  in  this  country.  I  shall  exert  my  poor  talents 
to  ward  them  off.  Dangers  are  to  be  apprehended  in  whatever 
manner  we  proceed  ;  but  those  of  a  consolidation  are  the  most  de¬ 
structive.  Let  us  leave  no  expedient  untried  to  secure  happiness  : 
but  whatever  be  our  decision,  I  am  consoled,  if  American  liberty 
will  remain  entire  only  for  half  a  century,  and  I  trust  that  mankind 
in  general,  and  our  posterity  in  particular,  will  be  compensated  for 
every  anxiety  we  now  feel. 

Another  gentleman  tells  us,  that  no  inconvenience  will  result 
from  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  taxation  by  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  ;  that  two  shillings  out  of  ten  may  be  saved  by  the  impost  : 
and  that  four  shillings  may  be  paid  to  the  federal  collector,  and  four 
tn  the  state  collector.  A  change  of  government  will  not  pay  money, 
if,  from  the  probable  amount  of  the  imposts,  you  take  the  enormous 


360 


DEBATES. 


{Henry. 

and  extravagant  expenses  which  will  certainly  attend  the  support  of 
this  great  consolidated  government,  I  believe  you  will  find  no  re¬ 
duction  of  the  public  burthens  by  this  new  system.  The  splendid 
maintenance  of  the  ‘President  and  of  the  members  of  both  houses 
and  the  salaries  and  fees  of  the  swarm  of  officers  and  dependants  of 
'Che  government,  will  cost  this  continent  immense  sums.  Double 
sets  of  collectors  will  double  the  expense :  to  these  are  to  be  added 
oppressive  excisemen  and  custom-house  officers.  Sir,  the  people 
have  an  hereditary  hatred  to  custom-house  officers.  The  experience 
of  the  mother  country  leads  me  to  detest  them.  They  have  intro¬ 
duced  their  baneful  influence  into  the  administration,  and  destroyed 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  systems  that  ever  the  world  saw. 
Our  fore-fathers  enjoyed  liberty  there  while  that  system  was  in 
fits  purity, but  it  is  now  contaminated  by  influence  of  every  kind. 

The  style  of  the  government  (we,  the  people)  was  introduced  per¬ 
haps  to  recommend  it  to  the  people  at  large,  to  those  citizens  who  are 
'to  be  levelled  and  degraded  to  the  lowest  degree,  who  are  likened  to 
a  herd :  *  and  who,  by  the  operation  of  this  blessed  system,  are  to  be 
transformed  from  respectable  independent  citizens,  to  abject,  depen¬ 
dent  subjects  or  slaves.  The  honorable  gentleman  has  anticipated 
what  we  are  to  be  reduced  to,  by  degradingly  assimilating  our  citi¬ 
zens  to  a  herd. 

[Here  Governor  Randolph  arose,  and  declared  that  he  did  not  use 
that  word  to  excite  any  odium,  but  merely  to  convey  an  idea  of  a  mul¬ 
titude.] 

Mr.  HENRY  replied,  that  it  made  a  deep  impression  on  his  mind 
and  that  he  verily  believed,  that  system  would  operate  as  he  had  said. 
He  then  continued — I  will  exchange  that  abominable  word  for  requi¬ 
sitions — requisitions  which  gentlemen  affect  to  despise,  have  noth- 
ing  degradingin  them.  On  this  depends  our  political  prosperity.  I 
never  will  give  up  that  darling  word  requisitions — my  country  may 
give  it  up — a  majority  may  Wrest  it  from  me,  but  I  will  never  give  it 
up  till  my  grave.  Requisitions  are  attended  with  one  singular  ad¬ 
vantage.  They  are  attended  by  deliberation.  They  secure  to  the 
slates  the  benefit  of  correcting  oppressive  errors.  If  our  assembly 
thought  requisitions  erroneous — if  they  thought  the  demand  was  too 
great,  they  might  at  least  supplicate  congress  to  reconsider — that  it 
was  a  little  too  much.  The  power  of  direct  taxation  was  called  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  the  soul  of  the  government :  another  gentle¬ 
man  called  it  the  lungs  of  the  government.  We  all  agree,  that  it  is 
the  most  important  part  of  the  body  politic.  If  the  power  of  raising 
money  be  necessary  for  the  general  government,  it  is  no  less  so  for 
thp  states.  If  money  be  the  vitals  of  congress,  is  it  not  precious  for 

•  Governor  Randolph  had,  cursorily,  mentioned  the  word  “  herd”  ia  his 
second  speech. 


Henrv.] 


VIRGINIA. 


161 


those  individuals  from  whom  it  is  to  be  taken1?  Must  I  give  my  soul 
— my  lungs,  to  congress?  Congress  must  have  our  souls — the  state 
must  have  our  souls.  This  is  dishonorable  and  disgraceful.  These 
two  co-ordinate,  interfering,  unlimited  powers  of  harrassing  the  com¬ 
munity,  are  unexampled  ;  it  is  unprecedented  in  history.  They  are 
the  visionary  projects  of  modem  politicians.  Tell  me  not  of  imagi¬ 
nary  means,  but  of  reality  ;  this  political  solecism  will  never  tend  to 
the  benefit  of  the  community.  It  will  be  as  oppressive  in  practice  as 
it  is  absurd  in  theory.  If  you  part  from  this,  which  the  honorable 
gentleman  tells  you  is  the  soul  of  congress, you  will  he  inevitably  ruin¬ 
ed.  I  tell  you,  they  shall  not  have  the  soul  of  Virginia.  They  tell 
us  that  one  collector  may  collect  the  federal  and  state  taxes.  The 
general  government  being  paramount  to  the  state  legislatures,  if  the 
sheriff  is  to  collect  for  both  ;  his  riodit  hand'  for  the  congress,  his  left 
for  the  state  ;  his  right  hand  being  paramount  over  the  left,  his  col- 
lections  will  go  to  congress.  We  will  have  the  rest.  Deficiencies 
in  collections  will  alwayk  operate  against  the  states.  Congress  be¬ 
ing  the  paramount  supreme  power,  must  not  be  disappointed.  Thus 
congress  will  have  an  unlimited,  unbounded  command  over  the  soul 
of  this  commonwealth.  After  satisfying  their  uncontrolled  demands 
what  can  be  left  for  the  states?  Not  a  sufficiency  even  to  defray  the 
expense  of  their  internal  administration — They  mnst  therefore  glide 
imperceptibly  and  gradually  out  of  existence.  This,  sir,  must  natu¬ 
rally  terminate  in  a  consolidation.  If  this  will  do  for'other  people, 
it  never  will  do  for  me. 

If  we  are  to  have  one  representative  for  every  30,000  souls,  it  must 
be  by  implication.  The  constitution  does  not  positively  secure  it — 
Even  say  it  is  a  natural  implication,  why  not  give  us  a  right  to  that 
proportion  in  express  terms  in  language  that  could  not  admit  of  eva¬ 
sions  or  subterfuges?  If  they  can  use  implication  for  us,  they  can 
also  use  implications  against  us.  We  are  giving  power  ;  they  are 
getting  power  ;  judge  then,  on  which  side  the  implication  will  be 
used.  When  we  once  put  it  in  their  option  to  assume  constructive 
power,  danger  will  follow — Trial  by  jury,  and  liberty  of  the  press, 
are  also  on  this  foundation  of  implication.  If  they  encroach  on  these 
rights,  and  you  give  yo-ur  implication  for  a  plea,  you  are  cast;  for  they 
will  be  justified  by  the  last  part  of  it,  which  gives  them  full  power 
— “  To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry 
their  power  into  execution.”  Implication  is  dangerous,  because  it  is 
unbounded  :  if  it  be  admitted  at  all,  and  no  limits  be  prescribed,  it 
admits  of  the  utmost  extension.  They  say  that  every  thing  that  is  not 
given  is  retained.  The  reverse  of  the  proposition  is  true  by  implica¬ 
tion.  They  do  not  carry  their  implication  so  far  when  they  speak 
of  the  general  welfare.  No  implication  when  the  sweeping  clause 
vol.  3.  11 


162  DEBATES.  [Henry; 

comes.  Implication  is  only  neccesary  when  the  existence  of  privile¬ 
ges  is  in  dispute.  The  existence  of  powers  is  sufficiently  establish¬ 
ed.  If  we  trust  our  dearest  rights  to  implication,  we  shall  be  in  a 
very  unhappy  situation. 

Implication  in  England  has  been  a  source  of  dissention.  There 
has  been  a  war  of  implication  between  the  king  and  people.  For  10© 
years,  did  the  mother  country  struggle  under  the  uncertainty  of  im¬ 
plication.  The  people  insisted  that  their  rights  were  implied  r  the 
monarch  denied  the  doctrine.  The  bill  of  rights,  in  some  degree, 
terminated  the  dispute.  By  a  bold  implication,  they  said  they  had 
a  right  to  bind  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  This  constructive  power 
we  opposed,  and  successfully.  Thirteen  or  fourteen  years  ago,  the 
most  important  thing  that  could  be  thought  of,  was  to  exclude  the 
possibility  of  construction  and  implication.  These,  sir,  were  then 
deemed  perilous.  The  first  thing  that  was  thought  of,  was  a  bill  of 
rights.  We  were  not  satisfied  with  your  constructive  argumentative 
rights. 

Mr.  Henry  then  declared  a  bill  of  rights  indispensably  necessary; 
that  a  general  positive  provision  should  be  inserted  in  the  new  sys¬ 
tem,  securing  to  the  states  and  the  people,  every  right  which  was  not 
conceded  to  the  general  government ;  and  that  every  implication 
should  be  done  away.  It  being  now  late,  he  concluded  by  obser¬ 
ving,  that  he  would  resume  the  subject  another  time. 

Monday ,  the  9th  of  June ,  1788. 

[The  first  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.] 

Mr  HENRY. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  find  myself  again  constrained 
to  trespass  on  the  patience  of  this  committee.  I  wish  there  was  a 
prospect  of  union  in  our  sentiments. — So  much  time  would  not  then 
be  taken  up.  But  when  I  review  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  un- 
•der  consideration,  and  of  dangers  which  appear  to  me  in  this  new 
plan  of  government,  and  compare  thereto,  my  poor  abilities  to  se¬ 
cure  our  rights,  it  will  take  much  more  time,  in  my  poor  unconnec" 
ted  way,  to  traverse  the  objectionable  parts  of  it — there  are  friends 
here  who  will  be  abler  than  myself,  to  make  good  these  objections 
which  to  us  appear  wellTounded.  If  we  recollect,  on  last  Satuiday, 
I  made  some  observations  on  some  of  those  dangers,  which  these 
gentlemen  would  fain  persuade  us  hang  over  the  citizens  of  this 
commonwealth,  to  induce  us  to  change  the  government,  and  adopt 
the  new  plan.  Unless  there  be  great  and  awful  dangers,  the  change 
is  dangerous,  and  the  experiment  ought  not  to  be  made.  In  estima¬ 
ting  the  magnitude  of  these  dangers,  we  are  obliged  to  take  a  most 
serious  view  of  them,  to  see  them,  to  handle  them,  and  to  be  fami¬ 
liar  with  them.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  feign  mere  imaginary  dan 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


163 


gers ;  there  must  be  a  dreadful  reality.  The  great  question  between 
us,  is,  does  that  reality  exist1?  These  dangers  are  partially  attributed 
to  bad  laws,  execrated  by  the  community  [at  large.  It  is  said  the 
people  wish  to  change  the  government.  I  should  be  happy  to  meet 
them  on  that  ground.  Should  the  people  wish  to  change  it,  we 
should  be  innocent  of  the  dangers.  It  is  a  fact,  that  the  people  do 
not  wish  to  change  their  government.  How  am  I  to  prove  it!  It 
will  rest  on  my  bare  assertion,  unless  supported  by  an  internal  con¬ 
viction  in  men’s  breasts.  My  poor  say-so  is  a  mere  nonentity.  But, 
sir,  I  am  persuaded  that  four-fifths  of  the  people  of  Virginia  must 
have  amendments  to  the  new  plan,  to  reconcile  them  to  a  change  of 
their  government^/  It  is  a  slippery  foundation  for  the  people  to  rest 
their  political  salvation  on  my  or  their  assertions.  No  government 
can  flourish  unless  it  be  founded  on  the  affection  of  the  people.  Un¬ 
less  gentlemen  can  be  sure,  that  this  new  system  is  founded  on  that 
ground,  they  ought  to  stop  their  career. 

I  will  not  repeat  what  the  gentlemen  say—1  will  mention  one' 
thing.  There  is  a  dispute  between  us  and  the  Spaniards  about  the 
right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi.  This  dispute  has  sprung  from 
the  federal  government.  I  wish  a  great  deal  to  be  said  on  this  sub¬ 
ject.  I  wish  to  know  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  business,  as  it 
would  probably  unfold  great  dangers.  In  my  opinion  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  that  river  calls  for  our  most  serious  consideration.  It  has 
been  agitated  in  congress.  Seven  states  have  voted,  so  as  that  it  is 
known  to  the  Spaniards,  that  under  our  existing  system,  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  shall  be  taken  from  them.  Seven  states  wished  to  relin¬ 
quish  this  river  to  them.  The  six  southern  states  opposed  it.  Sev¬ 
en  states  not  being  sufficient  to  convey  it  away,  it  remains  now  ouis. 
If  I  am  wrongs,  there  is  a  number  cn  this  floor,  who  can  contradict 
the  facts — I  will  readily  retract.  This  new  government,  I  conceive, 
will  enable  those  states  who  have  already  discovered  their  inclina¬ 
tion  that  way,  to  give  away  this  river.  Will  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  advise  us  to  relinquish  its  inestimable  navigation,  and  place 
formidable  enemies  to  our  backs?  This  weak,  this  poor  confedera¬ 
tion  cannot  secure  us.  We  are  resolved  to  take  shelter  under  the 
shield  of  federal  authority  in  America.  The  southern  parts  of 
America  have  been  protected  by  that  weakness  so  much  execrated. 
I  hope  this  will  be  explained.  I  was  not  in  congress  when  these 
transactions  took  place.  I  may  not  have  stated  every  fact.  I  may 
have  misrepresented  matters.  I  hope  to  be  fully  acquainted  with 
every  thing  relative  to  the  object.  Let  us  hear  how  th^  great  and 
important  right  of  navigating  that  river  has  been  attended  to  ,*  and 
whether  I  am  mistaken  t  in  my  opinion,  that  federal  measures  will 
lose  it  to  us  forever.  If  a  bare  majority  of  congress  can  make  laws, 
’the  situation  of  our  western  citizens  is  dreadful. 


164 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


We  are  threatened  from  danger  for  the  non-payment  of  our  debt 
due  to  France.  We  have  information  come  from  an  illustrious  citi¬ 
zen  of  Virginia,  who  is  now  in  Paris,  which  disproves  the  sugges¬ 
tions  of  such  danger.  This  citizen  has  not  been  in  the  airy  regions 
of  theoretic  speculation — our  ambassador  is  this  worthy  citizen. 
The  ambassador  of  the  United  States  of  America,  is  not  so  despised, 
as  the  honorable  gentleman  would  make  us  believe.  A  servant  of 
a  republic  is  as  much  respeeted  as  that  of  a  monarch.  The  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  tells  us,  that  hostile  fleets  are  to  be  sent  to  make  re¬ 
prisals  upon  us — our  ambassador  tells  you,  that  the  king  of  France 
has  taken  into  consideration,  to  enter  into  commercial  regulations 
on  reciprocal  terms  with  us,  which  will  be  of  peculiar  advantage  to 
us.  Does  this  look  like  hostility?  I  might  go  further  ;  I  might  say, 
not  from  public  authority,  but  good  information,  that  his  opinion  is, 
that  you  reject  this  government.  His  character  and  abilities  are  in 
the  highest  estimation  ;  he  is  well  acquainted  in  every  respect,  with 
this  country,  equally  so  with  the  policy  of  the  European  nations. 
This  illustrious  citizen  advises  you  to  reject  this  government,  till  it 
be  amended.  His  sentiments  coincide  entirely  with  ours.  His  at¬ 
tachment  to,  and  services  done  for  this  country,  are  well  known. 
At  a  great  distance  from  us,  he  remembers  and  studies  our  happi¬ 
ness.  Living  in  splendour  and  dissipation,  he  thinks  yet  of  bills 
of  rights — thinks  of  those  little  despised  things  called  maxims. 
Let  us  follow  the  sage  advice  of  this  common  friend  of  our  happi¬ 
ness.  It  is  little  usual  for  nations  to  send  armies  to  collect  debts. 
The  house  of  Bourbon,  that  great  friend  of  America,  will  never  at 
tack  her  for  her  unwilling  delay  of  payment.  Give  me  leave  to  say, 
that  Europe  is  too  much  engaged  about  objects  of  greater  impor¬ 
tance  to  attend  to  us.  On  that  great  theatre  of  the  world,  the  little 
American  matters  vanish.  Do  you  believe,  that  the  mighty  monarch 
of  France,  beholding  the  greatest  scenes  that  ever  engage  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  a  prince  of  that  country,  will  divert  himself  from  those  im¬ 
portant  objects,  and  now  call  for  a  settlement  of  accounts  with 
America?  This  proceeding  is  not  warranted  by  good  sense.  The 
friendly  disposition  to  us,  and  the  actual  situation  of  France,  ren¬ 
der  the  idea  of  danger  from  that  quarter  absurd.  Would  this  coun¬ 
tryman  of  ours  be  fond  of  advising  us  to  a  measure  which  he  knew 
to  be  dangerous?  And  can  it  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  he  can 
be  ignorant  of  any  premeditated  hostility  against  this  country?  The 
honorable  gentleman  may  suspect  the  account,  but  I  will  do  our 
iriend  the  justice  to  say,  that  he  would  warn  us  of  any  danger  from 
France. 

Do  you  suppose  the  Spanish  monarch  will  risk  a  contest  with  the 
United  States,  when  his  feeble  colonies  are  exposed  to  them?  Eve- 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


165 


ry  advance  the  people  make  to  the  westward,  makes  him  tremble 
for  Mexico  and  Peru.  Despised  as  we  are  among  ourselves,  under 
our  present  government,  we  are  terrible  to  that  monarchy.  If  this 
be  not  a  fact,  it  is  generally  said  so.  , 

We  are  in  the  next  place  frightened' by  dangers  from  Holland. 
We  must  change  our  government  to  escape  the  wrath  of  that  repub¬ 
lic.— -Holland  groans  under  a  government  like  this  new  one.  A 
stadtholder  sir,  a  Dutch  president  has  brought  on  that  country,  mis¬ 
eries  which  will  not  permit  them  to  collect  debts  with  fleets  or  ar¬ 
mies.  The  wife  of  a  Dutch  Stadtholder  brought  100,000  men  against 
that  republic,  and  prostrated  all  opposition.  This  president  will 
bring  miseries  on  us,  like/those  of  Holland.  Such  is  the  condition 
of  European  affair's,  that  it  would  be  unsafe  for  them  to  send  fleets  or 
armies  to  collect  debts.  But  here,  sir,  they  make  a  transition  to  ob¬ 
jects  of  another  kind.  We  are  presented  with  dangers  of  a  very 
uncommon  nature.  1  am  not  acquainted  with  the  arts  of  painting. 
Some  gentleman  have  a  peculiar  talent  for  them.  They  are  practi¬ 
sed  with  great  ingenuity  on  this  occasion.  As  a  counterpart  to  what 
we  have  already  been  intimidated  with,  we  are  told,  that  some  lands 
have  been  sold,  which  cannot  be  found ;  and  that  this  will  bring 
war  on  this  country.  Here  the  picture  will  not  stand  examination. 
Can  it  be  supposed,  that  if  a  few  land  speculators  and  jobbers  have 
have  violated  the  principles  of  probity,  that  it  will  involve  this 
country  in  war?  Is  there  no  redress  to  be  otherwise  obtained,  even 
admitting  the  delinquents  and  sufferers  to  be  numerous?  When  gen¬ 
tlemen  are  thus  driven  to  produce  imaginary  dangers,  to  induce  this 
convention^  assent  to  this  change,  I  am  sure  it  will  not  be  uncan- 
did  to  say,  that  the  change  itself  is  really  dangerous.  Then  the 
Maryland  compact  is  broken,  and  will  produce  perilous  consequen¬ 
ces.  I  see  nothing  very  terrible  in  this.  The  adoption  of  the  new 
system  will  not  remove  the  evil.  Will  they  forfeit  good  neighbor¬ 
hood  with  us,  because  the  compact  is  broken?  Then  the  disputes 
concerning  the  Carolina  line  are  to  involve  us  in  dangers.  A  strip 
of  land  running  from  the  westward  of  the  Alleghany  to  the  Missis* 
sippi,  is  the  subject  of  this  pretended  dispute.  I  do  not  know  the 
length  or  breadth  of  this  disputed  spot.  Have  they  not  regularly 
confirmed  our  right  to  it,  and  relinquished  all  claims  to  it1  I  can 
venture  to  pledge,  that  the  people  of  Carolina  will  never  disturb  us. 
The  strength  of  this  despised  country  has  settled  an  immense  tract 
of  country,  to  the  westward.  Give  me  leave  to  remark,  that  the 
honorable  gentleman’s  observations  on  our  frontiers,  north  and  south, 
east  and  west,  are  all  inaccurate. 

Will  Maryland  fight  against  this  country  for  seeking  amendments? 
Were  there  not  60  members  in  that  state  wdio  went  in  quest  o! 


166 


DEBATES. 


Henr^ 


amendments'?  Sixty  against  8  or  10  were  in  favor  of  pursuing 
amendments.  Shall  they  fight  us  for  doing  what  they  themselves 
have  done?  They  have  sought  amendments,  but  differently  from 
the  manner  in  which  I  wish  amendments  to  be  got.  The  honorable 
gentleman  may  plume  himself  on  this  difference.  Will  they  fight 
us  for  this  dissimilarity?  Will  they  fight  us  for  seeking  the  object 
they  seek  themselves.  When  they  do,  it  will  be  time  for  me 
to  hold  my  peace.  Then,  sir,  comes  Pennsylvania,  in  terrible 
array.  Pennsylvania  is  to  go  in  conflict  with  Virginia.  Penn- 
sylvania  has  been  a  good  neighbor  heretofore.  She  is  federal — 
something  terrible — Virginia  cannot  look  her  in  the  face.  If  we 
sufficiently  attend  to  the  actual  situation  of  things,  we  will  con¬ 
clude  that  Pennsylvania  will  do  what  we  do.  A  number  of  that 
country  are  strongly  opposed  to  it.  Many  of  them  have  lately 
been  convinced  of  its  fatal  tendency.  They  aTe  disgorged  of  their 
federalism.  I  beseech  you  to  bring  this  matter  home  to  yourselves. 
Was  there  a  possibility  for  the  people  of  that,  state  to  know  the  rea¬ 
sons  of  adopting  that  system,  or  understand  its  principles,  in  so 
very  short  a  period  after  its  formation?  This  is  the  middle  of  June. 
Those  transactions  happened  last  August.  The  matter  was  circula¬ 
ted  by  every  effort  of  industry,  and  the  most  precipitate  measures 
taken  to  hurry  the  people  into  adoption.  Yet.  now,  after  having  had 
several  months  since  to  investigate  it,  a  very  large  part  of  this  com- 
munit}r,  a  great  majority  of  this  community,  do  not  understand  it. 
I  have  heard  gentlemen  of  respectable  abilities  declare,  they  did 
not  understand  it.  If  after  great  pains,  men  of  high  learning, 
who  have  received  the  aids  of  a  regular  education,  do  not  under¬ 
stand  it ;  if  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  understood  it  in  so  short 
a  time,  it  must  have  been  from  intuitive  understandings,  and  un¬ 
common  acuteness  of  perception.  Place  yourselves  in  their  sit¬ 
uation — would  you  fight  your  neighbours  for  considering  this  great 
and  awful  matter?  If  you  wish  for  real  amendments,  such  as 
the  security  of  the  trial  by  jury,  it  will  reach  the  hearts  of  the 
people  of  that  state.  Whatever  may  be  the  disposition  of  the  aris- 
tocratical  politicians  of  that  country,  I  know  they  are  friends  of 
human  nature  in  that  state.  If  so,  they  will  never  make  war  on 
those  who  make  professions  of  what  they  are  attached  to  them¬ 
selves. 

As  to  the  danger  arising  from  borderers,  it  is  mutual  and  recipro¬ 
cal.  If  it  be  dangerous  for  Virginia,  it  is  equally  so  for  them.  It 
will  be  their  true  inerest  to  be  united  with  us.  The  danger  of  our' 
being  their  enemies,  will  be  a  prevailing  argument  in  our  favor.  It 
will  be  as  powerful  to  admit  us  into  the  union,  as  a  vote  of  adoption 
without  previous  amendments  could  possibly  be. 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


163 


Then  the  savage  Indians  are  to  destroy  us.  We  cannot  look  them 
in  the  face.  The  danger  is  here  divided  ;  they  are  as  terrible  to  the 
other  states  as  to  us :  but,  sir,  it  is  well  known  that  we  have  noth* 
ing  to  fear  from  them.  Our  back  settlers  are  considerably  stronger 
than  they.  Their  superiority  increases  daily.  Suppose  the  states 
to  be  confederated  all  around  11s,  what  we  want  in  numbers,  we  shall 
make  up  otherwise.  Our  compact  situation  and  natural  strength 
will  secure  us.  But  to  avoid  all  dangers,  we  must  take  shelter  un¬ 
der  the  federal  government.  Nothing  gives  a  decided  importance 
but  this  federal  government.  You  will  sip  sorrow ,  according  to  the 
vulgar  phrase,  if  you  want  any  oda-er  security  than  the  laws  of  Vir¬ 
ginia.  '  ,  /  r 

A  number  of  characters  of  the  greatest  eminence  in  this  country, 
object  to  this  government,  for  its  consolidating  tendency.  This  is 
not  imaginary.  It  is  a  formidable  reality.  If  consolidation  proves  to 
be  as  mischievous  to  this  country,  as  it  has  been  to  other  countries, 
what  will  the  poor  inhabitants  of  this  country  do?  This  government 
will  operate  like  an  ambuscade.  It  will  destroy  the  state  governments, 
and  swallow  the  liberties  of  the  people,  without  given  previous  no¬ 
tice.  If  gentlemen  are  willing  to  run  the  hazard,  let  them  run  it ; 
but  I  shall  exculpate  myself  by  my  opposition,  and  monitory  warn¬ 
ings  within  these  walls.  But,  then  comes  paper  money.  We  are 
at  peace  on  this  subjebfc.  Though  this  is  a  thing  which  that  mighty 
federal  convention  had  no  business  with,yec  I  acknowledge  that  pa¬ 
per  money  would  be  the  bane  of  this  country.  I  detest  it.  Noth¬ 
ing  can  justify  a  people  in  resorting  to  it,  but  extreme  necessity. 
It  is  at  rest,  how’ever,  in  this  commonwealth.  It  is  no  longer  soli¬ 
cited  or  advocated. 

Sir,  I  ask  you,  and  every  other  gentleman  who  hears  me,  if  he  can 
retain  his  indignation,  at  a  system,  which  takes  from  the  state  legis 
latures  the  care  and  preservation  of  the  interest  of  the  people  ;  180 
representatives,  the  choice  of  the  people  of  Virginia  cannot  be  trusted 
with  their  interests.  They  are  a  mobbish  suspected  herd.  This  coun¬ 
try  has  not  virtue  enough  to  manage  its  own  internal  interests.  These 
must  be  referred  to  the  chosen  ten.  If  we  cannot  be  trusted  with  the 
private  contracts  of  the  citizens,  we  must  be  depraved  indeed.  If  he 
can  prove,  that  by  one  uniform  system  of  abandoned  principles,  the 
legislature  has  betrayed  the  rights  of  the  people,  then  let  us  seek 
another  shelter.  So  degrading  an  indignity — so  flagrant  an  outrage 
on  the  states — so  vile  a  suspicion,  is  humiliating  to  my  mind,  and 
many  others! 

Will  the  adoption  of  this  new  plan  pay  our  debts?  This,  sir,  is  a 
plain  question.  It  is  inferred  that  our  grievances  are  to  be  redressed 
and  the  evils  of  the  existing  system  to  be  removed  by  the  new  con- 


168 


DEBATES. 


[Henry*- 


stitution.  Let  me  inform  the  honorable' gentleman,  that  no  nation 
ever  paid  its  debts  by  a  change  of  government,  without  the  aid  of  in¬ 
dustry.  You  never  will  pay  your  debts  but  by  a  radical  change  of 
domestic  economy.  At  present  you  buy  too  much;  and  make  too  little 
to  pay.  Will  this  new  system  promote  manufactures,  industry,  and 
frugality?  If  instead  of  this,  your  hopes  and  designs  will  be  disap¬ 
pointed,  you  relinquish  a  great  deal,  and  hazard  indefinitely  more,  for 
nothing.  Will  it  enhance  the  value  of  your  lands?  Will  it  lessen 
your  burthens?  Will  your  looms  and  wheels  go  to  work  by  the 
act  of  adoption?  If  it  will  in  its,consequence  produce  these  things, 
it  will  consequently  produce  a  reform,  and  enable  you  to  pay  your 
debts.  Gentlemen  must  prove  it.  I  am  a  sceptic — an  infidel  on  this 
point!  I  cannot  conceive  that  it  will  have  these  happy  consequences. 
I  cannot  confide  in  assertions  and  allegations.  The  evils  that  attend 
us,  lie  in  extravagance  and  want  of  industry,  and  can  only  be  removed 
by  assiduity  and  economy.  Perhaps  we  shall  be  told  by  gentlemen, 
that  these  things  will  happen,  because  the  administration  is  to  be  ta¬ 
ken  from  us,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  ealuminous  few,  who 
will  pay  different  attention,  and  be  more-  studiously  careful  than  we 
can  be  supposed  to  be. 

With  respect  to  the  economical  operation  of  the  new  government, 
I  will  only  remark,  that  the  national  expenses  will  be  increased — if 
not  doubled,  it  will  approach  it  very  near.  I  might  without  incur¬ 
ring  the  imputation  of  illiberality  or  extravagance,  say,  that  the  ex¬ 
pense  will  be  multiplied  tenfold.-'  I  might  tell  you  of  a  numerous 
standing  army — a  great  powerful  navy — a  long  and  rapacious  train 
of  officers  and  dependents,  independent  of  the  president,  senators  and 
representatives,  whose  compensations  are  without  limitation.  How 
are  our  debts  to  be  discharged  unless  the  taxes  are  increased,  when 
the  expenses  of  the  government  are  so  greatly  augmented?  The  de¬ 
fects  of  this  system  are  so  numerous  and  palpable,  and  so  many 
states  object  to  it,  that  no  union  can  be  expected,  unless  it  be  amen¬ 
ded.  Let  us  take  a  review  of  the  facts;  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode 
Island  have  rejected  it.  They  have  refused  to  become  federal.  New 
Vork  and  North  Carolina  are  reported  to  be  strongly  against  it. 
From  high  authority,  give  me  leave  to  tell,  that  New  York  is  in  high 
opposition.  Will  any  gentleman  say  that  North  Carolina  is  not 
against  it?  They  may  say  so,  but  I  say  that  the  adoption  of  it  in  those 
two  states  amount  to  entire  uncertainty.  The  system  must  be  amen¬ 
ded  before  these  four  states  will  accede  to  it — besides,  there  are  se¬ 
veral  other  states  who  are  dissatisfied,  and  wish  alterations  Mas¬ 
sachusetts  has,  in  decided  terms,  proposed  amendments  :  but  by  her 
previous  ratification,  has  put  the  cart  before  the  horse.  Maryland 
instituted  a  committee  to  propose  amendments.  It  then  appears. 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


169 


that  two  states  have  actually  refused  to  adopt — two  of  those  who 
have  adopted,  have  a  desire  of  amending.  And  there  is  a  probabili¬ 
ty  of  its  being  rejected  by  New  York  and  North  Carolina.  The 
other  states  have  acceded  without  proposing  amendments.  With 
respect  to  them,  local  circumstances  have  in  my  judgment,  operated 
to  produce  its  unconditional  instantaneous  adoption.  The  locality  of 
the  seat  of  government,  ten  miles  square,  and  the  seat  of  justice,  with 
all  their  concomitant  emoluments,  operated  so  powerfully  with  the 
first  adopting  state,  that  it  was  adopted  without  taking  time  to  reflect. 
We  are  told  that  numerous  advantages,  will  result  from  the  concen¬ 
tration  of  the  wealth  and  grandeur  pflfhe  United  States  in  one  happy 
spot,  to  those  who  will  reside  in  or  near  it.  Prospects  of  profits 
and  emoluments  have  a  powerful  influence  on  the  human  mind.  We, 
sir,  have  no  such  projects,  as  that  of  a  grand  seat  of  government  for 
thirteen  states,  and  perhaps  for  100  states  hereafter.  Connecticut  and 
New  Jersey  have  their  localities  also.  New  York  lies  between  them. 
They  have  no  ports,  and  are  not  importing  states.  New  York  is  an 
importing  state,  and  taking  advantage  of  its  situation,  makes  them 
pay  duties  for  all  the  articles  of  their  consumption  :  thus  these  two 
states  being  obliged  to  import  all  they  want  through  the  medium  of 
N  ew  York,  pay  the  particular  taxes  of  that  state.  I  know  the  force 
and  effect  of  reasoning  of  this  sort,  by  experience.  When  the  im¬ 
post  was  proposed  some  years  ago,  those  states  which  were  not  im¬ 
porting  states,  and  readily  agree  to  concede  to  congress,  the  power  of 
laying  an  impost  on  all  goods  imported  for  the  use  of  the  continen¬ 
tal  treasury.  Connecticut  and  New  Jersey,  therefore,  are  influenced 
by  advantages  of  trade  in  their  adoption.  The  amount  of  all  imposts 
are  to  go  into  one  common  treasury.  This  favors  adoption  by  the 
non-importing  states  ;  as  they  participate  in  the  profits  which  were 
before  exclusively  enjoyed  by  the  importing  states.  Notwithstand¬ 
ing  this  obvious  advantage  to  Connecticut,  there  is  a  formidable  mi- 
nority  there  against  it.  After  taking  this  general  view  of  American 
affairs,  as  respecting  federalism,  will  the  honorable  gentleman  tell 
me,  that  he  can  expect  union  in  America]  When  so  many  states  are 
pointedly  against  it  ;  when  two  adopting  states  have  pointed  out  in 
express  terms  their  dissatisfaction  as  it  stands  ;  and  when  there  is 
so  respectable  a  body  of  men  discontented  iri  every  state,  can  the 
honorable  gentleman  promise  himself  harmony,  of  which  he  is  so 
fond!  If  he  can,  I  cannot.  To  me  it  appears  unequivocally  clear, 
that  we  shall  not  have  that  harmony.  If  it  appears  to  the  other  states 
that  our  aversion  is  founded  on  just  grounds,  will  they  not  be  willing 
to  indulge  us!  If  disunion  will  really  result  from  Virginia’s  propo¬ 
sing  amendments,  will  they  not  wish  the  re-establishment  of  the 
union,  and  admit  us,  if  not  on  such  terms  as  we  prescribe,  yet  on  ad- 


170 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


vantageous  terms'?  Is  not  union  as  essential  to  their  happiness,  as 
to  ours?  Sir,  without  a  radical  alteration,  the  states  will  never  be 
embraced  in  one  federal  pale.  If  you  attempt  to  force  it  down  men’s 
throats,  and  call  it  union,  dreadful  consequences  must  follow.  He 
has  said  a  great  deal  of  disunion,  and  the  dangers  that  a^e  to  arise 
from  it — when  we  are  on  the  subject  of  disunion  and  dangers,  let 
me  ask,  how  will  his  present  doctrine  hold  with  what  has  happened? 
Is  it  consistent  with  that  noble  and  disinterested  conduct,  which  he 
displayed  on  a  fornier  occasion  ?  Did  he  not  tell  us  that  he  with¬ 
held  his  signature?  Where  then  were  the  dangers  which  now  ap¬ 
pear  to  him  so  formidable  ?  He  saw  all  America  eagerly  confiding 
that  the  result  of  their  deliberations  would  remove  their  distresses. 
He  saw  all  America  acting  under  the  impulses  of  hope,  expectation 
and  anxiety  arising  from  their  situation,  and  their  partiality  for  the 
members  of  that  convention ;  yet  his  enlightened  mind,  knowing 
that  system  to  be  defective,  magnanimously  and  nobly  refused  its 
approbation.  He  was  not  led  by  the  illumined — the  illustrious  few. 
He  was  actuated  by  the  dictates  of  his  own  judgement;  and  a  bet¬ 
ter  judgment  than  I  can  form.  He  did  not  stand  out  of  the  way  of 
information.  He  must  have  been  possessed  of  every  intelligence. 
What  alteration  has  a  few  months  brought  about  ?  The  eternal  dif¬ 
ference  between  right  and  wrong  does  not  fluctuate.  It  is  immuta¬ 
ble.  I  ask  this  question  as  a  public  man,  and  out  of  no  particular 
view.  I  wish,  as  such,  to  consult  every  source  of  information,  to 
form  my  judgment  on  so  awful  a  question.  I  had  the  highest  re¬ 
spect  for  the  honorable  gentleman’s  abilities.  I  considered  his  opin¬ 
ion  as  a  great  authority.  He  taught  me,  sir,  in  despite  of  the  ap¬ 
probation  of  that  great  federal  convention,  to  doubt  of  the  propriety 
of  that  system.  When  I  found  my  honorable  friend  in  the  number  of 
those  who  doubted,  I  began  to  doubt  also.  I  coincided  with  him  in 
opinion.  I  shall  be  a  staunch  and  faithful  disciple  of  his.  I  applaud 
that  magnanimity  which  led  him  to  withhold  his  signature.  If  he 
thinks  now  differently,  he  is  as  free  as  I  am.  Such  is  my  situation, 
that  as  a  poor  individual,  I  look  for  information  every  where. 

This  government  is  so  new,  it  wants  a  name.  I  wish  its  other 
novelties  were  as  harmless  as  this.  He  told  us,  we  had  an  Ameri¬ 
can  dictator  in  the  year  1781.  We  never  had  an  American  Presi¬ 
dent.  In  making  a  dictator,  we  follow  the  example  of  the  most  glo¬ 
rious,  magnanimous,  and  skilful  nations.  In  great  dangers,  this 
power  has  been  given.  Rome  had  furnished  us  with  an  illustrious 
example.  America  found  a  person  of  that  trust :  she  looked  to  Vir¬ 
ginia  for  him.  We  gave  a  dictatorial  power  to  hands  that  used  it 
gloriously  ;  and  which  were  rendered  more  glorious  by  surrendering 
it  up.  Where  is  there  a  breed  of  such  dictators?  Shall  we  find  a 


171 


HfeNRY.]  VIRGINIA. 

set  of  American  Presidents  of  such  a  breed  1  Will  the  American 
President  come  and  lay  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  congress  his  laurels'? 

I  fear  there  are  few  men  who  can  be  trusted  on  that  head.  The  glo¬ 
rious  republic  of  Holland  has  erected  monuments  of  her  warlike  in¬ 
trepidity  and  valor  :  yet  she  is  now  totally  ruined  by  a  stadtholder, 
a  Dutch  President. 

The  destructive  wars  into  which  that  nation  has  been  plunged, 
has  since  involved  her  in  Ambition.  The  glorious <.  triumphs  of 
Blenheim  and  Ramillies  were  not  so  conformable  to  the  genius,  nor 
so  much  to  the  true  interest  of  the  republic,  as  those  numerous  and 
useful  canals  and  dykes,  and  other  objects  at  which  ambition  spurns. 
That  republic  has,  however,  by  the  industry  of  its  inhabitants,  and 
policy  of  its  magistrates,  suppressed  the  ill  effects  of  ambition. — 
Notwithstanding  two  of  their  provinces  have  paid  nothing,  yet  I 
hope  the  example  of  Holland  will  tell  us,  that  we  can  live  happily 
without  changing  our  present  despised  government.  Cannot  people 
be  as  happy  under  a  mild  as  under  an  energetic  government1?  Cannot 
content  andfelicity  be  enjoyed  in  republics  as  well  as  in  monarchies, 
because  there  are  whips,  chains  and  scourges  used  in  the  latter?  If 
I  am  not  as  rich  as  my  neighbor,  If  I  give  my  mite — my  all — repub¬ 
lican  forbearance  will  say,  that  it  is  sufficient.  So  said  the  honest 
confederates  of  Holland — you  are  poor — we  are  rich.  We  will  go 
on  and  do  better,  than  be  under  an  oppressive  government.  Far  bet¬ 
ter  will  it  be  for  us  to  continue  as  we  are,  than  to  go  under  that 
tight  energetic  government. 

I  am  persuaded  of  what  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  sepa¬ 
rate  confederacies  will  ruin  us.  In  my  judgment,  they  are  evils, 
never  to  be  thought  of,  till  a  people  are  to  be  driven  by  necessity. 
When  he  asks  my  opinion  of  consolidation — of  one  power  to  reign 
over  America,  with  a  strong  hand,  I  will  tell  him,  I  am  persuaded 
of  the  rectitude  of  my  honorable  friend’s  opinion  (Mr  Mason)  that 
one  government  cannot  reign  over  so  extensive  a  country  as  this  is, 
without  absolute  despotism.  Compared  to  such  a  consolidation, 
small  confederacies  are  little  evils  ;  though  they  ought  to  be  recur¬ 
red  to,  but  in  case  of  necessity.  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  are 
despised  They  could  exist  separated  from  the  rest  of  America. — 
Maryland  and  Vermont  were  not  over  run  when  out  of  the  confed¬ 
eracy.  Though  it  is  not  a  desirable  object,  yet  I  trust,  that  on  ex¬ 
amination  it  will  be  found,  that  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  would 
not  be  swallowed  up,  in  case  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  be  joined 
together. 

When  we  come  to  the  spirit  of  domestic  peace,  the  humble  genius 
of  Virginia,  has  formed  a  government  suitable  to  the  genius  of  her 
people.  I  believe  the  hands  that  formed  the  American  constitution 
triumph  in  the  experiment.  It  proves,  that  the  man  who  formed  it, 


DEBATES. 


172 


[Henry. 


and  perhaps,  by  accident,  did  what  design  could  not  do,  in  other 
parts  of  the  world.  After  all  your  reforms  in  government,  unless 
you  consult  the  genius  of  its  inhabitants,  you  will  never  succeed — 
your  system  can  have  no  duration.  Let  me  appeal  to  the  candor  of 
the  committee,  if  the  want  of  money,  be  not  the  source  of  all  our 
misfortunes. We  cannot  be  blamed  for  not  making  dollars.  This  want 
of  money  cannot  be  supplied  by  changes  in  government.  The  only 
possible  remedy,  as  I  have  before  asserted,  is  industry,  aided  by 
economy.  Compare  the  genius  of  the  people  with  the  government 
of  this  country.  Let  me  remark,  that  it  stood  the  severest  conflict, 
during  the  war,  to  which  ever  human  virtue  has  been  called.  I 
call  upon  every  gentleman  here  to  declare,  whether  the  king  of 
England  had  any  subjects  so  attached  to  his  family  and  govern¬ 
ment — so  loyal  as  we  were  ?  But  the  genius  of  Virginia  called  us 
for  liberty — called  us  from  those  beloved  endearments,  which  from 
long  habits,  we  were  taught  to  love  and  revere.  We  entertained, 
from  our  earliest  infancy,  the  most  sincere  regard  and  reverence  for 
the  mother  country.  Our  partiality  extended  to  a  predeliction  for 
hqr  customs,  habits,  manners,  and  laws.  Thus  inclined,  when  the 
deprivation  of  our  liberty  was  attempted,  what  did  we  do?  What 
did  the  genius  of  Virginia  tell  us — sell  all,  and  purchase  liberty! — 
This  was  a  severe  conflict.  Republican  maxims  wore  then  esteemed. 
Those  maxims,  and  the  genius  of  Virginia,  landed  you  safe  on  the 
shore  of  freedom. 

On  this  awful  occasion,  did  you  want  a  federal  government?  Did 
federal  ideas  possess  your  minds?  Did  federal  ideas  lead  you  to  the 
most  splendid  victories?  I  must  again  repeat  the  favorite  idea,  that 
the  genius  of  Virginia  did,  and  will  again  lead  us  to  happiness.  To 
obtain  the  most  splendid  prize,  you  did  not  consolidate.  You  ac¬ 
complished  the  most  glorious  ends,  by  the  assistance  of  the  genius 
of  your  country.  Men  were  then  taught  by  that  genius,  that  they 
were  fighting  for  what  was  most  dear  to  them.  View  the  most  af¬ 
fectionate  father — the  most  tender  mother,  operated  on  by  liberty, 
nobly  stimulating  their  sons,  their  dearest  sons — sometimes  their 
only  son,  to  advance  to  the  defence  of  their  country.  We  have 
seen  sons  of  Cincinnatus,  without  splendid  magnificence  or  parade, 
going,  with  the  genius  of  their  great  progenitor,  Cincinnatus,  to  the 
plough.  Men  who  served  their  country  without  ruining  it — men 
who  had  served  it  to  the  destruction  of  their  private  patrimonies — 
their  country  owing  them  amazing  amounts,  for  the  payment  of 
which  no  adequate  provision  was  then  made.  We  have  seen  such 
men  throw  prostrate  their  arms  at  your  feet.  They  did  not  call  lor 
those  emoluments,  which  ambition  presents  to  some  imaginations. 
The  soldiers,  who  were  able  to  command  every  thing,  instead  of 


VIRGINIA. 


173 


Henry.] 


trampling  on  those  laws,  which  they  were  instituted  to  defend,  most 


strictly  obeyed  them.  The  hands  of  justice  have  not  been  laid  on 


a  single  American  soldier. 

Bring  them  into  contrast  with  Europeans.  You  will  see  an  as¬ 
tonishing  superiority  over  the  latter.  There  has  been  a  strict  sub¬ 
ordination  to  the  laws.  The  honorable  gentleman’s  office  gave  him 
an  opportunity  of  viewing,  if  the  laws  were  administered  so  as  to 
prevent  riots,  routs,  and  unlawful  assemblies.  From  his  then  situa¬ 
tion,  he  could  have  furnished  us  with  the  instances  in  which  licen¬ 


tiousness  trampled  on  the  laws.  Among 


paid  almost  to  the  last  shilling,  for  the  saHe  of  justice;  we  have 
paid  as  well  as  any  state  :  I  will  not  say  better.  To  support  the 
general  government,  and  our  own  legislature — to  pay  the  interest  of 
the  public  debts,  and  defray  contingencies,  we  have  been  heavily 
taxed.  To  add  to  these  things,  the  distresses  produced  by  paper 
money,  and  by  tobacco  contracts,  were  sufficient  to  render  any  peo¬ 
ple  discontented.  These  sir,  were  great  temptations;  but  in  the 
most  severe  conflict  of  misfortunes,  this  code  of  laws — this  genius 
of  Virginia,  call  it  what  you  will,  triumphed  over  every  thing. 

Why  did  it  please  the  gentleman  (Mr  Corbin)  to  bestow  such 
epithets  on  our  country?  Have  the  worms  taken  possession  of  the 
wood,  that  our  strong  vessel — our  political  vessel,  has  sprung  a  leak? 
He  may  know  better  than  me,  but  I  consider  such  epithets  to  be  the 
most  illiberal  and  unwarrantable  aspersions  on  our  laws.  The  sys¬ 
tem  of  laws  under  which  we  have  lived,  has  been  tried  and  found 
to  suit  our  genius.  I  trust  we  shall  not  change  this  happy  system. 

I  cannot  so  easily  take  leave  of  an  old  friend.  Till  I  see  him  fol¬ 
lowing  after  and  pursuing  other  objects,  which  can  pervert  the  great 
objects  of  human  legislation,  pardon  me  if  I  withhold  my  assent. 

Some  here  speak  of  the  difficulty  in  forming  a  new  code  of  laws. 
Young  as  we  were,  it  was  not  wonderful  if  there  was  a  difficulty  in 
forming  and  assimilating  one  system  of  laws.  I  shall  be  obliged  to 
the  gentleman,  if  he  would  point  out  those  glaring,  those  great 
faults.  The  efforts  of  assimilating  our  laws  to  our  genius  have  not 
been  found  altogether  vain.  I  shall  pass  over  some  other  circum¬ 
stances  which  I  intended  to  mention,  and  endeavor  to  come  to  the 
capital  objection,  which  my  honorable  friend  made.  My  worthy 
friend  said,  that  a  republican  form  of  government  would  not  suit  a 
very  extensive  country;  but  that  if  a  government  were  judiciously 
organized  and  limits  prescribed  to  it,  an  attention  to  these  principles 
might  render  it  possible  for  it  to  exist  in  an  extensive  territory. 
Whoever  will  be  bold  to  say,  that  a  continent  can  be  governed  by 
that  system,  contradicts  all  the  experience  of  the  world.  It  is  a 
work  too  great  for  human  wisdom.  Let  me  call  for  an  example. 


DEBATES. 


174 


[  Henrv. 


Experience  has  been  called  the  best  teacher.  I  call  for  an  example 
of  a  great  extent  of  country,  governed  by  one  government,  or  con¬ 
gress,  call  it  what  you  will.  I  tell  him  that  a  government  may  be 
trimmed  up  according  to  gentleman’s  fancy,  but  it  never  can  operate 
—it  will  be  but  very  short-lived.  However  disagreeable  it  may  be 
to  lengthen  my  objections,  I  cannot  help  taking  notice  of  what  the 
honorable  gentleman  said.  To  me  it  appears  that  there  is  no  check 
in  that  government.  The  president,  senators,  and  representatives 
all  immediately,  or  mediately,  are  the  choice  of  the  people.  Tell 
me  not  of  checks  on  paper ;  but  tell  me  of  checks  founded  on  self- 
love.  The  English  government  is  founded  on  self-love.  This 
powerful  irresistable  stimulus  of  self-lGve  has  saved  that  govern¬ 
ment. 

It  has  interposed  that  hereditary  nobility  between  the  king  and 
commons.  If  the  host  of  lords  assist  or  permit  the  king  to  over¬ 
turn  the  liberties  of  the  people,  the  same  tyranny  will  destroy  them; 
they  will  therefore  keep  the  balance  in  the  democratic  branch. 
Suppose  they  see  the  commons  encroach  upon  the  king ;  self-love, 
that  great  energetic  check,  will  call  upon  them  to  interpose :  for,  if 
the  king  be  destroyed,  their  destruction  must  speedily  follow.  Here 
is  a  consideration  which  prevails  in  my  mind,  to  pronounce  the  Brit¬ 
ish  government  superior  in  this  respect  to  any  government  that  ever 
was  in  any  country.  Compare  this  with  your  congressional  checks. 

I  beseech  gentlemen  to  consider,  whether  they  can  say,  when  trust¬ 
ing  power,  that  a  mere  patriotic  profession  will  be  equally  operative 
and  efficacious,  as  the  check  of  self-love.  In  considering  the  expe¬ 
rience  of  ages,  is  it  not  seen,  that  fair  disinterested  patriotism,  and 
professions  of  attachment  to  rectitude,  have  never  been  solely  trust¬ 
eed  to  by  an  enlightened,  free  people]  If  you  depend  on  your  presi¬ 
dent’s  and  senator’s  patriotism,  you  are  gone.  Have  you  a  resting 
place  like  the  British  government?  Where  is  the  rock  of  your  sal¬ 
vation?  The  real  rock  of  political  salvation  is  self-love,  perpetuated 
from  age  to  age  in  every  human  breast,  and  manifested  in  every  ac¬ 
tion.  If  they  can  stand  the  temptations  of  human  nature,  you  are 
safe.  If  you  have  a  good  president,  senators  and  representatives, 
there  is  no  danger.  But  can  this  be  expected  from  human  nature? 
Without  real  checks  it  will  not  suffice  that  some  of  them  are  good. 
A  good  president,  or  senator,  or  representative  will  have  a  natural 
weakness.  Virtue  will  slumber. 

The  wicked  will  be  continually  watching  :  consequently  you  will 
be  undone.  Where  are  your  checks?  You  have  no  hereditary  no¬ 
bility — an  order  of  men,  to  whom  human  eyes  can  be  cast  up  for  re¬ 
lief  :  tor,  says  the  constitution,  there  is  no  title  of  nobility  to  be 
granted  ;  which,  by  the  by,  would  not  have  been  so  dangerous,  as 


VIRGINIA, 


175 


Henry.] 

the  perilous  cession  of  powers  contained  in  this  paper :  because,  as 
Montesquieu  says,  when  you  give  titles  of  nobility,  you  know  what 
you  give  :  but  when  you  give  power,  you  know  not  what  you  give. 
Ifyou  say,  that  out  of  this  depraved  mass,  you  can  collect  luminous 
characters,  it  will  not  avail,  unless  this  luminous  breed  will  be  pro- 
pagated  from  generation  to  generation  ;  and  even  then,  if  the  num¬ 
ber  of  vicious  characters  will  preponderate,  you  are  undone. 

And  that  this  will  certainly  be  the  case,  is,  to  my  mind,  perfectly 
clear.  In  the  British  government  there  are  real  balances  and  checks  : 
in  this  system,  there  are  only  id^al  balances.  TiU  I  am  convinced 
that  there  are  actual  efficient  checks,  I  will 'not  give  my  assent  to  its 
establishment.  The  president  and  senators  have  nothing  to  lose. 
They  have  not  that  interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  government, 
that  the  king  and  lords  have  in  England.  They  will,  therefore,  be 
regardless  of  the  interests  of  the  people.  The  constitution  will  be 
as  safe  with  one  body,  as  with  two.  It  will  answer  every  purpose 
of  human  legislation.  How  was  the  constitution  of  England  when 
only  the  commons  had  the  power?  I  need  not  remark,  that  it  was 
the  most  unfortunate  aera  when  that  country  returned  to  kings,  lords, 
and  commons,  without  sufficient  responsibility  in  the  king.  When 
the  commons  of  England,  in  the  manly  language  which  became 
freemen,  said  to  their  king,  you  are  our  servant ,  then  the  temple  of 
liberty  was  complete.  From  that  noble  source  have  we  derived  our 
liberty :  that  spirit  of  patriotic  attachment  to  one’s  country ;  that 
zeal  for  liberty,  and  that  enmity  to  tyranny,  which  signalized  the 
then  champions  of  liberty,  we  inherit  fiom  our  British  ancestors. 
And  I  am  free  to  own,  that  if  you  cannot  love  a  republican  govern¬ 
ment,  you  may  love  the  British  monarchy :  for,  although  the  king 
is  not  sufficiently  responsible,  the  responsibility  of  his  agents,  and 
the  efficient  checks  i  nterposed  by  the  British  constitution  render  it 
less  dangerous  than  other  monarchies,  or  oppressive  tyrannical  aris¬ 
tocracies.  What  are  the  checks  of  exposing  accounts?  The  checks 
upon  paper  are  inefficient  and  nugatory.  Can  you  search  your  presi¬ 
dent’s  closet?  Is  this  a  real  check?  We  ought  to  be  exceedingly 
cautious,  in  giving  up  this  life,  this  soul,  of  money,  this  power 
taxation  to  congress.  What  powerful  check  is  there  here  to  pre¬ 
vent  the  most  extravagant  and  profligate  squandering  of  the  public 
money?  What  security  have  we  in  money  matters?  Enquiry  is 
precluded  by  this  constitution.  I  never  wish  to  see  congress  sup¬ 
plicate  the  states.  But  it  is  more  abhorrent  to  my  mind  to  give 
them  an  unlimited  and  abounded  eommand,over  our  souls,  our  lives, 
our  purses,  without  any  check  or  restraint.  How  are  you  to  keep 
enquiry  alive?  How  discover  their  conduct?  We  are  told  by  that 
paper,  that  a  regular  statement  and  account  of  the  receipts  and  ex- 


176 


DEBATES. 


[He^ry, 


penditures  of  all  public  money,  shall  be  published  from  time  to  time. 
Here  is  a  beautiful  check!  What  time1?  Here  is  the  utmost  lati¬ 
tude  left.  If  those  who  are  in  congress  please  to  put  that  construc¬ 
tion  upon  it,  the  words  of  the  constitution  will  be  satisfied  by  pub¬ 
lishing  those  accounts  once  in  one  hundred  years.  They  may  pub¬ 
lish  or  not,  as  they  please.  Is  this  like  the  present  despised  sys¬ 
tem,  whereby  the  accounts  are  to  be  published  monthly? 

I  come  now  to  speak  something  of  requisitions,  which  the  honor¬ 
able  gentleman  thought  so  truly  contemptible  and  disgraceful.  That 
incorrigible  gentleman  being  a  child  of  the  revolution,  must  recol¬ 
lect  with  gratitude  the  glorious  effects  of  requisitions.  It  is  an  idea 
that  must  be  grateful  to  every  American.  An  English  army  was 
sent  to  compel  us  to  pay  money  contrary  to  our  consent — to  force  us 
by  arbitrary  and  tyrannical  coercion  to  satisfy  their  unbounded  de¬ 
mands.  We  wished  to  pay  with  our  own  consent.  Rather  than 
pay  against  our  consent,  we  engaged  in  that  bloody  contest,  which 
terminated  so  gloriously.  By  requisitions  we  pay  with  our  own 
consent;  by  the  means  we  have  triumphed  in  the  most  arduous  strug¬ 
gle,  that  ever  tried  the  virtue  of  man.  W  e  fought  then  for  what 
we  are  contending  now — to  prevent  an  arbitrary  deprivation  of  our 
property,  contrary  to  our  consent  and  inclination.  I  shall  be  told  in 
this  place,  that  those  who  are  to  tax  us  are  our  representatives.  To 
this  I  answer,  that  there  is  no  real  check  to  prevent  their  ruining 
us.  There  is  no  actual  responsibility.  The  only  semblance  of  a 
check  is  the  negative  power  of  not  re-electing  them.  This,  sir,  is 
but  a  feeble  barrier,  when  their  personal  interest,  their  ambition  and 
avarice  come  to  be  put  in  contrast  with  the  happiness  of  the  people. 
All  checks  founded  on  any  thing  but  self  love,  will  not  avail.  The 
•constitution  reflects  in  the  most  degrading  and  mortifying  manner 
on  the  virtue,  integrity  and  wisdom  of  the  state  legislatures,  it  pre¬ 
supposes  that  the  chosen  few  who  go  to  congress  will  have  more 
upright  hearts,  and  more  enlightened  minds,  than  those  who  aie 
members  of  the  individual  legislatures.  To  suppose  that  ten  gen¬ 
tlemen  shall  have  more  real  substantial  merit,  than  170  is  humilia¬ 
ting  to  the  last  degree.  If,  sir,  the  diminution  of  numbers  be  an 
augmentation  of  merit,  perfection  must  centre  in  one.  If  you  have 
the  faculty  of  discerning  spirits,  it  is  better  to  point  out  at  once  the 
man  who  has  the  most  illumined  qualities.  If  ten  men  be  better 
than  170,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  one  is  better  than  ten — the 
choice  is  more  refined. 

Such  is  the  danger  of  the  abuse  of  implied  power,  that  it  would 
be  safer  at  once  to  have  seven  representatives,  the  number  to  which 
we  are  now  entitled,  than  depend  on  uncertain  and  ambiguous  lan¬ 
guage  of  that  paper.  The  number  may  be  lessened  instead  of  being 


ItaRY.]  VIRGINIA.  .  177 

increased ;  and  yet  by  argumentative  constructive  implied  power,  the 
proportion  of  taxes  inav  continue  the  same,  or  be  increased.  Noth¬ 
ing  is  more  perilous  than  constructive  power,  which  gentlemen  are 
so  willing  to  trust  their  happiness  to. 

If  sheriffs  prove  now  an  over  match  for  our  legislature,  if  their 
ingenuity  has  eluded  the  vigilance  of  our  laws,  how  will  the  matter 
he  amended  when  they  come  clothed  with  federal  authority]  A 
strenuous  argument  offered  by  gentlemen,  is,  that  the  same  sheriffs 
may  collect  for  the  continental  and  state  treasuries.  I  have  before, 
shown,  that  this  must  have  an  inevitable  tendency  to'give  a  decided 
preference  to  the  federal  treasury  in  the  actual  collections,  and  to 
throw  all  deficiencies  on  the  state.  This  imaginary  remedy  for  the 
evil  of  congressional  taxation  will  have  another  oppressive  operation. 
The  sheriff  comes  to-day  as  a  state  collector — next  day  he  is  fede¬ 
ral — how  are  you  to  fix  him]  How  will  it  be  possible  to  discrimi¬ 
nate  oppressions  committed  to  one  capacity,  from  those  perpetrated 
in  the  other]  Will  not  this  ingenuity  perplex  the  simple  and  honest 
planter]  This  will  at  least  involve  in  difficulties,  those  who  are 
unacquainted  with  legal  ingenuity.  When  you  fix  him,  where  are 
you  to  punish  him]  For,  I  suppose,  they  will  not  stay  in  our  courts  : 
they1  must  go  to  the  federal  court;  for,  if  I  understand  that  paper 
right,  all  controversies  arising  under  that  constitution;  or  under  the 
laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  are  to  be  tried  in  that  court.  When 
gentlemen  told  us,  that  this  part  deserved  the  least  exception,  I  was 
in  hopes  they  would  prove  that  there  was  plausibility  in  their  sug¬ 
gestions,  and  that  oppression  would  probably  not  follow.  Are  we 
not  told,  that  it  shall  be  treason  to  levy  war  against  the  United 
States]  Suppose  an  insult  offered  to  the  federal  laws  at  an  immense 
distance  from  Philadelphia,  will  this  be  deemed  treason]  And  shall 
a  man  be  dragged  many  hundred  miles  to  be  tried  as  a  criminal,  for 
having,  perhaps  justifiably,  resisted  an  unwarrantable  attack  upon 
his  person  or  property]  I  am  not  well  acquainted  with  federal  juris¬ 
prudence  ;  but  it  appears  to  me  that  these  oppressions  must  result 
from  this  part  of  the  plan.  It  is  at  least  doubtful,  and  where  there 
is  even  a  possibility  of  such  evils,  they  ought  to  be  guarded  against. 

There  are  to  be  a  number  of  places  fitted  out  for  arsenals  and  dock¬ 
yards  in  the  different  states.  Unless  you  sell  to  congress  such  places 
as  are  proper  for  these,  within  your  state,  you  will  not  be  consistent 
after  adoption  :  it  results  therefore,  clearly  that  you  are  to  give  into 
their  hands,  all  suck  places  as  are  fit  for  strong  holds.  When  you 
have  these  fortifications  and  garrisons  within  your  state,  your  legisla¬ 
ture  will  have  no  power  over  them, though  they  see  the  most  dangerous 
insults  offered  to  the  people  daily.  They  are  also  to  have  magazines 
iq  each  state  these  depositaries  for  arms,  though  within  the  state, 
vcl.  3.  12 


/ 


178  .  DEBATES,  [Henry, 

will  be  free  from  the  control  of  its  legislature.  Are  we  at  last 
brought  to  such  a  humilitating  and  debasing  degradation,  that  we 
cannot  be  trusted  with  arms  for  our  own  defence!  Where  is  the  differ" 
ence  between  having  our  arms  in  our  own  possession  and  under  our 
own  direction,  and  having  them  under  the  management  of  congress'? 
If  our  defeneebe  therm/ object  of  having  those  aims,  in  whose  hands 
can  they  be  trusted  with  more  property,  or  equal  safety  to  us,  as  in 
our  own  hands?  If  our  legislature  be  unworthy  of  legislating  for 
every  foot  in  this  state,  they  are  unworthy  of  saying  another  word. 

The  clause  which  says,  that  Congress  shall  “  provide  for  arming, 
organizing  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  part 
of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  seivice  of  the  United  States,  re- 
serving  to  the  states  respectively,  the  appointment  of  the  officers,’* 
seemed  to  put  the  states  in  the  power  of  congress.  I  wished  to  be 
informed,  if  congress  neglected  to  discipline  them,  whether  the  states 
were  not  precluded  from  doing  it.  Not  being  favored  with  a  particu¬ 
lar  answer,  I  am  confirmed  in  my  opinion,  that  the  states  have  not 
the  power  of  disciplining  them,  without  recurring  to  the  doctrine  of 
constructive  implied  powers.  If  by  implication  the  states  may  dis¬ 
cipline  fhem,  by  impl  ication  also,  congress  may  officer  them  ;  because 
in  a  partition  of  power,  each  has  a  right  to  come  in  for  part ;  and  be 
cause  implication  is  to  operate  in  favor  of  congress  on  all  occasions, 
where  their  object  is  the  extension  of  power, as  well  as  in  favor  of  the 
states.  We  have  not  one  fourth  of  the  arm^  that  would  be  sufficient 
to  defend  oursel  ves.  The  power  of  arming  the  militia,  and  the  means 
of  purchasing  arms,  are  taken  from  the  states  by  the  paramount  pow¬ 
ers  of  congress.  If  congress  will  not  arm  them,  they  will  not  be  ar¬ 
med  at  all.  ,  ’ 

The  have  been  no  instances  shewn  of  a  voluntary  cession  of  pow¬ 
er,  sufficient  to  induce  me  to  grant  the  most  dangerous  power  ;  a  pos¬ 
sibility  of  their  future  relinquishment  will  not  persuade  me  to  yield 
such  powers. 

Congress,  by  the  power  of  taxation- — by  that  of  raising  an  army, 
and  by  their  control  over  the  militia,  have  the  sword  in  one  hand,  and 
the  purse  in  the  other.  Shall  we  be  safe  without  either?  Congress 
have  an  unlimited  power  over  both  ;  they  are  entirely  given  up  by  us. 
Let  him  candidly  tell  me,  where  and  when  did  freedom  exist,  when 
the  sword  and  purse  were  given  up  from  the  people?  Unless  a  mira¬ 
cle  in  human  affairs  interposed,  no  nation  ever  retained  its  liberty  af¬ 
ter  the  loss  of  the  sword  and  purse.  Can  you  prove  by  any  argu¬ 
mentative  deduction,  that  it  is  possible  to  be  safe  without  retaining 
one  of  these?  It  you  give  them  up,  you  are  gone.  Give  us  at  least 
a  plausible  apology  why  congress  should  keep  their  proceedings  in 
secret.  They  have  the  power  of  keeping  them  secret  as  long  as  they 


’Henrx.] 


VIRGINIA. 


179 


please,  for  the  provision  for  a  periodical  publication  is  too  inexplicit 
and  ambiguous  to’avail  anything.  The  expression  from  time  to  time , 
as  I  have  more  than  once  observed,  admits  of  any  extension-  They 
may  carry  on  the  most  wicked  and  pernicious  of  schemes  under  the 
dark  veil  of  secrecy.  The  liberties  of  a  people  never  were  nor  ever 
will  be  secure,  when  the  transactions  of  their  rulers  maybe  concealed 
from  them.  The  most  iniquitious  plots  maybe  carried  on  against 
their  liberty  and  happiness.  I  am  not  an  advocate  for  divulging  in¬ 
discriminately  all  the  operations  of  government,  thought  the  practice 
of  our  ancestors,  in’some  degree  justifies  it.  Such  transactions  as 
relate  to  military  operations  or  affairs  of  great  consequence,  the  im¬ 
mediate  promulgation  of  which  might  defeat  the  interests  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  I  would  not  wish  to  be  published,  till  the  end  which  requir¬ 
ed  their  secrbcy  should  have  been  effected.  But  to  cover  with  the 
veil  of  secrecy,  the  common  routine  of  business,  is  an  abomination 
in  the  eyes  of  every  intelligent  man,  and  every  friend  to  his  country. 

[Mr.  Henry  then,  in  a  very  animated  manner,  expatiated  on  the 
evil  and  pernicious  tendency  of  keeping'secret  the  common  proceed¬ 
ings  of  government  ;  and  said  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  practice  of 
other  free  nations.  The  people  of  England,  he  asserted,  had  gain¬ 
ed  immortal  honor  by  the  manly  boldness  wherewith  they  divulged 
to  all  the  world,  their  political  disquisitions  and  operations  ;  and  that 
such  a  conduct  inspired  other  nations  with  respect.  He  illustrsted 
his  arguments  by  several  quotations.]  . 

He  then  continued — I  appeal  to  this  convention  if  it  would  not  be 
better  for  America  to  take  off  the  veil  of  secrecy.  Look  at  us — hear 
our  transactions'.  If  this  had  been  the  language  of  the,  federal  con- 
vention,  what  would  have  been  the  result'?  Such  a  constitution 
would  not  have  come  out  to  your  utter  astonishment,  conceding  such 
dangerous  powers,  and  recommending  secrecy  in  the  future  transac¬ 
tions  of  government.  1  belie.ve  it  would  have  given  more  general 
satisfaction,  if  the  proceedings  of  that  convention  had  not  been  con¬ 
cealed  from  the  public  eye.  This  constitution  authorise  the  same  con¬ 
duct.  There  is  not  an  English  feature  in  it.  The  transactions  of 
congress  may  be  concealed  a  century  from  the  public,  consistently 
with  the  constitution.  This,  sir,  is  a  laudable  imitation  of  the  trans 
actions  of  the  Spanish  treaty.  We  have  not  forgotten  with  what  a 
thick  veil  of  secrecy  those  transactions  wrere  covered. 

We  are  told  that  this  government  collectively  taken,  is  withoutan 
example — that  it  is  national  in  this  part,  and  federal  in  that  part,  &c. 
We  may  be  amused  if  we  please,  by  a  treatise  of  political  anatomy. 
In  the  brain  it  is  national  :  the  stamina  are  federal — some  limbs  are 
federal,  others  national.  The  senators  are  voted  for  by  the  state  le¬ 
gislatures,  so  far  it  is  federal.  Individuals  choose  the  members  of  the 
first  branch  ;  here  it  is  national.  It  is.  federal  in  conferring  genera? 


) 


180  DEBATES,  [Henryk 

powers  ;  but  national  in  retaining  them.  It  is  not  to  be  supported 
by  the  states — the  pockets  of  individuals  are  to  be  searched  for  its 
maintenance.  What  signifies  it  to  me,  that  you  have  the  most  curi¬ 
ous  anatomical  description  of  it  in  its  creation.  To  all  the  common 
purpose  of  legislation,  it  is  a  great  consolidation  of  government. 

You  are  to  have  the  right  to  legislate  in  any  but  trivia]  cases:  you 
are  not  to  touch  private  contracts;  you  are  not  to  have  the  right  of  ha¬ 
ving  arms  in  your  own  defence:  you  cannot  be  trusted  with  dealing 
out  justice  between  man  and  man.  What  shall  the  states  have  to  do? 
Take  care  of  the  poor,  repair  and  make  highways,  erect  bridges,  and 
so  on,  and  so  on.  Abolish  the  state  legislatures  at  once.  What  pur¬ 
poses  should  they  be  continued  for?  Our  legislature  will  indeed  be 
a  ludicrous  spectacle — 180  mien  marching  in  solemn  fareical  proces¬ 
sion,  exhibiting  a  mournful  proof  of  the  lost  liberty  of  their  country, 
without  the  power  of  restoring  it.  But,  Sir,  we  have  the  consolation 
that  it  is  a  mixed  goverment:  that  is,  it  may  work  sorely  on  your  neck 
but  you  will  have  some  comfort  by  saying,  that  it  was  a  federal  gov¬ 
ernment  in  its  origin. 

I  beg  gentlemen  to  consider — lay  aside  your  prejudices — is  this  a 
federal  government?  Is  it  not  a  consolidated  government  for  every 
purpose  almost?  Is  the  government  of  Virginia  a  state  government 
after  this  government  is  adopted?  I  grant  th^it  it  is  a  republican  gov¬ 
ernment,  but  for  what  purposes?  For  such  trivial  domestic  consid¬ 
erations,  as  render  it  unworthy  the  name  of  a  legislature.  I  shall 
take  leave  of  this  political  anatomy,  by  observing  that  it  is  the  most 
extraordinary  that  ever  entered  into  the  imagination  of  man.  If  our 
political  diseases  demand  a  cure,  this  is  an  unheard  of  medicine.  The 
honorable  member,  I  am  convinced,  wanted  a  name  for  it.  Were 
your  health  in  danger,  would  you  take  new  medicine?  I  need  not 
make  use  of  these  exclamations  :  for, every  member  in  this  commit¬ 
tee  must  be  [alarmed  at  making  new  and  unusual  experiments  in 
government.  Let  us  have  national  credit  and  a  national  treasury 
in  case  of  war.  You  never  can  want  national  resources  in  time  of 
war  :  if  the  war  be  a  national  one  ;  if  it  be  necessary,  and  this  ne¬ 
cessity  be  obvious  to  the  meanest  capacity.  The  utmost  exertions 
will  be  used  by  the  people  of  America  in  that  case.  A  republic  has 
this  advantage  over  a  monarchy,  that  its  wars  are  generally  founded 
on  more  just  grounds.  A  republic  can  never  enter  into  a  war,  un¬ 
less  it  be  a  national  war — unless  it  be  approved  of,  or  desired  by  the 
whole  community,  Did  ever  a  republic  fail  to  use  the  utmost  re¬ 
sources  of  the  community  when  war  was  necessary?  I  call  for  aa 
•example.  I  call  also  for  an  example,  when  a  republic  has  been  en¬ 
gaged  in  a  war  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  its  people.  There  are  thou¬ 
sands  ol  examples  where  the  ambition  of  its  prince  has  precipitated 


VIRGINIA. 


Hgxry.J 


m 


z.  nation  into  the  most  destructive  war.  No  nation  ever  withheld 
power  when  its  object  was  just  and  right.  I  will  hazard  an  obser¬ 
vation  :  I  find  fault  with  the  paper  before  you,  because  the  same  po¬ 
wer  that  declares  war,  has  the  power  to  carry  it  on.  Ts  it  so  in  Eng¬ 
land?  The  king  declares  war  :  the  house  of  commons  gives  the 
means  of  carrying  it  on.  This  is  a  strong  check  on  the  king.  He  will 
enter  into  no  war  that  is  unnecessary  ;  for  the  commons  having  the 
power  of  withholding  the  means,  will  exercise  that  power,  unless  the 
object  of  the  war  be  for  the  interest  of  the  nation.  Ho\yyis  it  here? 
The  congress  can  both  declare  war,  and  carry  it  on,  and  levy  your 
money,  as  long  as  you  have  a  shilling  to  pay. 

I  shall  now  speak  a  little  of  the  colonial  confederacy  which  was 
proposed  at  Albany.  Massachusetts  did  not  give  her  consent  to  the 
project  at  Albany,  so  as  to  consolidate  with  the  other  colonies.  Had 
there  been  a  consolidation  at  Albany,  where  would  have  been  their 
charter?  Would  that  confederacy  have  preserved  their  charter  from 
Britain?  The  strength  and  energy  of  the  then  designed  government 
would  have  crushed  American  opposition. 

The  American  revolution  took  its  origin  from  the  comparative 
weakness  of  the  British  government  ;  net.  being  concentrated  in  one 
point.  A  concentration  of  the  strength  and  interest  of  the  British 
government  in  one  point,  would  have  rendered  opposition  to  its  tyran¬ 
nies  fruitless.  For  want  of  that  consolidation  do  we  now  enjoy  lib¬ 
erty,  and  the  privilege  of  debating  at  this  moment.  I  am  pleased 
with  the  colonial  establishment.  The  example  which  the  honorable 
member  has  produced  to  persuade  us  to  depart  from  our  present  con¬ 
federacy,  rivets  me  to  my  former  opinion,  and  convinces  me  that  con¬ 
solidation  must  end  in  the  destruction  of  our  liberties. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  told  us  of  our  ingratitude  to  France. 
She  does  not  intend  to  take  payment  by  force.  Ingratitude  shall 
not  be  laid  to  my  charge.  I  wish  to  see  the  friendship  between  this 
country,  and  that  magnanimous  ally,  perpetuated.  Requisitions  will 
enable  us  to  pay  the  debt  we  owe  to  France  and  other  countries.  She 
does  not  desire  us  to  go  from  our  beloved  republican  government. 
The  change  is  inconsistent  with  our  engagements  with  those  nations. 
It  is  cried  out  that  those  in  opposition  wish  disunion.  This  is  not 
true.  They  are  the  most  strenuous  friends  to  it.  This  government 
will  clearly  operate  disunion.  If  it  be  heard  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  that  you  are  going  to  disunite  and  dissolve  the  confederacy 
what  says  France?  Will  she  be  indifferent  to  an  event  that  will  so 
radically  affect  her  treaties  with  us?  Our  treaty  with  her  is  founded 
on  the  federation — we  are  bound  to  her  as  13  states  confederated. 
What  will  become  of  the  treaty?  It  is  said  that  treaties  will  be  on 
c.  better  footing.  How  so?  Will  the  president,  senate  and  house  of 


182 


DEBATES.  [Henrx. 

representatives  be  parties  to  them'?  I  cannot  conceive  how  the  trea¬ 
ties  can  be  as  binding  if  the  confederacy  is  dissolved  as  they  are  now. 
Those  nations  will  not  continue  their  friendship  then  ;  they  will  be¬ 
come  our  enemies.  I  look  on  the  treaties  as  the  greatest  pillars  of 
safety.  If  the  house  of  Bourbon  keeps  us,  we  are  safe.  Dissolve 
that  confedracy — \yho  has  you?  The  British.  Federalism  will  not 
protect  you  from  the  British.  Is  a  connexion  with  that  country 
more  desirable?  I  was  amazed  when  gentlemen  forgot  the  friends  of 
America.  I  hope  that  this  dangerous  change  will  not  be  effected. 
It  is  safe  for  the  French  and  Spaniards,  that  we  should  continue  to  be 
thirteen  states — but  it  is  not  so,  that  we  should  be  censolidated  into 
one  government.  They  have  settlements  in  America — will  they  like 
schemes  of  popular  ambition?  Will  they  not  have  some  serious  re¬ 
flections?  You  may  tell  them  you  have  not  changed  your  situation: 
but  they  will  not  believe  you.  If  there  be  a  real  check  intended  to 
be  left  on  congress,  it  must  be  left  in  the  state  governments.  There 
will  be  some  cheek,  as  long  as  the  judges  are  incorrupt.  As  long 
as  they  are  upright,  you  may  preserVe  your  liberty.  But  what  will  the 
judges  determine  when  the  state  and  federal  authority  come  to  be 
contrasted?  Will  your  liberty  then  be  secure,  when  the  congression¬ 
al  laws  are  declared  paramount  to  the  laws  of  yonr  state,  and  the 
judges  are  sworn  to  support  them. 

I  am  constrained' to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  absurdity  of  adop¬ 
ting  this  system,  .and  relying  on  the  chance  of  getting  it  amended 
afterwards.  When  it  is  confessed  to  be  replete  with  defects,  is  it  not 
offering  to  insult  your  understandings,  to  attempt  to  reason  you  out  of 
the  propriety  of  rejecting  it,  till  it  be  amended?  Does  it  not  insult 
your  judgements  to  tell  you — adopt  first,  and  then  amend?  Is  your 
rage  for  novelty  so  great,  that  you  are  first  to  sign  and  seal,  and  then 
to  retract?  Is  it  possible  to  conceive  a  greater  solecism?  I  am  at  a 
loss  what  to  say.  You  agree  to  bind  yourselves  hand  and  foot — for 
the  sake  of  what?  Of  being  unbound.  You  go  into  a  dungeon — for 
what?  To  get'out.  Is  there  no  danger  when  you  go  in,  that  the 
bolts  of  federal  authority  shall  shut  you  in'1  Human  nature  never 
will  part  from  power.  Look  for  an  example  of  a  voluntary  relin¬ 
quishment  of  power,  from  one  end  of  the  globe  to  another — you  will 
jind  none.  Nine-tenths  of  our  fellow  men  have  been,  and  are  now 
depressed  by  the  most  intolerable  slavery,  in  the  different  parts  of 
the  world  :  because  the  strong  hand  of  power  has  bolted  them  in  the* 
dungeon  of  despotism. 

Review  the  present  situation  of  the  nations  of  Europe,  which  is 
pretended  to  be  the  freest  quarter  of  the  globe.  Cast  your  eyes  on 
the  countries  called  free  there.  Look  at  the  country  from  which  we 
are  descended*  I  beseech  you,  and  although  we  are  separated  by 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


183' 


everlasting1  insuperable  partitions,  yet  there  are  some  virtuous  people 
there  who  are  friends  to  human  nature  and  liberty.  Look  at  Britain, 
see  there,  the  bolts  and  bars  of  power — see  bribery  and  corruption 
defiling  the  fairest  fabric  that  ever  human  nature  reared!  Can  a 
gentleman  who  is  an  Englishman,  or  who  is  acquainted  with  the 
English  history,  desire  to  prove  these  evils'?  See  the  efforts  of  a 
man  descended  from  a  friend  of  America — see  the  efforts  of  that  man, 
assisted  even  by  the  king  to  make  reforms.  But  you  find  the  faults 

war  can  alter  them.- 
•y  to  century,  with¬ 
out  getting  their  government  amended.  Previous  adoption  was  the 
fashion  there.  They  sent  for  amendments  from  time  to  time ,  but 
never  obtained  them,  though  pressed  by  the  severest  oppression,  till 
"80,000  volunteers  demanded  them,  sword  in  hand — till  the  power  of 
Britain  was  prostrate ;  when  the  American  resistance  was  crowned 
with  success.  Shall  we  do  so?  If  you  judge  by  the  experience  of 
Ireland,  you  must  obtain  the  amendments  as  early  as  possible.  But, 
I  ask  you  again,  where  is  the  example  that  a  government  was  amend¬ 
ed  by  those  who  instituted  it?  "W  here  is  the  instance  of  the  eirors 
of  a  government  rectified  by  those  who  adopted  them? 

I  shall  make  a  few  observations  to  prove,  that  the  power  over 
elections,  which  is  given  to  congress,  is  contrived  by  the  federal 
government,  that  the  people  may  be  deprived  of  their  proper  influ¬ 
ence  in  the  government,;  by  destroying  the  force  and  effect  of  their 
suffrages.  Congress  is  to  have  a  discretionary  control  over  the  time, 
■place,  and  manner  of  elections.  The  representatives  are  to  be  elect¬ 
ed  consequently,  when  and  where  they  please.  A,s  to  the  time  and 
place,  gentlemen  have  attempted  to  obviate  the  objection  by  saying, 
that  the  time  is  to  happen  once  in  two  years,  and  that  the  place  is  to 
be  within  a  particular  district,  or  in  the  respective  counties.  But  how 
will  they  obviate  the  danger  of  referring  the  manner  of  election  to 
congress?  Those  illumined  genii  may  see  that  this  may  not  endan¬ 
ger  the  rights  of  the  people;  but  in  my  unenlightened  understanding, 
it  appears  plain  and  clear,  that  it  will  impair  the  popular  weight  in 
the  government.  Look  at  the  Roman  history.  They  had  two  ways 
of  voting;  the  one  by  tribes,  and  the  other  by  centuries.  By  the 
former,  numbers  prevailed  :  in  the  latter,  riches  preponderated.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  mode  prescribed,  congress  may  tell  you,  that  they 
have  a  right  to  make  the  vote  of  one  gentleman  go  as  far  as  the  votes 
of  LOO  poor  men.  The  power  over  the  manner,  admits  of  the  .most 
dangerous  latitude.  They  may  modify  it  as  they  please.  They  may 
regulate  the  number  of  votes  by  the  quantity  of  property,  without 
involving  any  repugnancy  to  the  constitution.  I  should  not  have 
thought  of  this  trick  or  contrivance,  had  I  not  seen  how  the  public 


too  strong  to  be  amended.  Nothing  but  bloody 
See  Ireland.  That; country  groaned  from  centu 


184 


DEBASES. 


[Lee,- 


liberty  of  Rome  was  tiifled  with  by  the  mode  of  voting  by  eenturiesy 
whereby  one  rich  man  had  as  many  votes  as  a  multitude  of  poor 
men.  The  Plebeians  were  trampled  on  till  they  resisted.  The  Pa¬ 
tricians  trampled  on  the  liberties  of  the  Piebiane,  till  the  latter  had 
the  spirit  to  assert  their  right  to  freedom  and  equality.  The  result 
of  the  American  mode  of  election  may  be  similar.  Perhaps  I  may 
be  told,  that  I  have  gone  through  the  regions  of  fancy — that  I  deal 
in  noisy  exclamations,  and  mighty  professions  of  patriotism.  Gen¬ 
tlemen  may  retain  their  opinions  but  I  look  on  that  paper  as  th® 
most  fatal  plan  that  could  possibly  be  conceived  to  enslave  a  free 
people.  If  such  be  your  rage  for  novelty,  take  it,  and  welcome;  bat 
you  never  shall  have  my  consent.  My  sentiments  may  appear  ex¬ 
travagant,  hut  I  can  tell  you,  that  a  number  of  my  fellow-citizens 
have  kindred  sentiments — and  I  am  anxious  if  my  country  should 
come  into,  the  hands  of  tyranny,  to  exculpate  myself  from  being  in 
any  degree  the  cause,  and  to  exert  my  faculties  to  the  utmost  to  ex¬ 
tricate  her.  Whether  I  am  gratified  or  not  in  my  beloved  form  ot 
government,  I  consider  that  the  more  she  has  plunged  into  distress, 
the  more  it  is  my  duty  to  relieve  her.  Whatever  may  be  the?  result, 

I  shall  wait  with  patience  till  the  day  may  corns,  when  an  opportunity 
shall  offer  to  exert  myself  in  her  cause.. 

But  I  should  be  led  to  take  thatman  for  a  lunatic,  whs  should  tell 
me  to  run  into  the  adoption  of  a  government,  avowedly  defective,  in 
hopes  of  having  it  amended  afterwards.  Were  1  about  to  give  away 
the  meanest  particle  ©f  my  own  property,!  should  act  with  more  pru- 
dene'e  and  discretion.  My  anxiety  and  fears  are  great,  lest  America 
by  the  adoption  of  this  system,  should  be  cast  into  a  fathomless  bot¬ 
tom.  Mr.  Henry  then  concluded,  that  as  he  had  not  gone  through 
all  he  intended  to  9ay,  he  hoped  he  would  be  indulged  another  time-. 

Mr.  LEE,  of  W'estmorelaad. — Mr.  Chairman,  when  I  spoke  be¬ 
fore,  and  called  on  the  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Henry)  to  come 
forward  and  give  his  reasons  for  his  opposition,  in  a  systematic  mari¬ 
ner,  I  did  it  from  love  of  order,  and  respect  for  the  character  of  the 
honorable  gentleman  ;  having  no  other  motives,  but  the  good  oi  my 
country.  As  he  seemed  so  solicitous  that  the  truth  should  be  brought 
before  the  committee  on  this  occasion,  I  thought  I  could  not  do  more 
properly  than  to  call  on  him  for  his  reasons  for  standing  forth  the 
champion  of  opposition..  I  took  the  liberty  to  add,  that  the  subject, 
belonged  to  the  judgments  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  and 
not  to  their  passions.  I  am  obliged  to  him  for  his  politeness  in  this, 
committee  ;  but  as  the  honorable  gentleman  seems  to  have  discarded 
in  a  great  measure,  solid  argument  and  strong  reasoning,  and  ha& 
established  a  new  system  of  throwing  those  bolts,  which  he  has  so 
peculiar  a  dexterity  at  discharging,  I  trust  I  shall  not  incur  the  dis- 


VIRGINIA, 


185 


Lee.] 

pleasure  of  the  committee,  by  answering  the  honorable  gentleman  iiz 
the  desultory  manner  in  which  he  has  treated  the  subject,  I  shall 
touch  a  few  of  those  luminous  points  which  he  has  entertained  ns  with. 
He  told  us  the  other  day,  that  the  enemies  of  the  censtitution  wer® 
firm  supporters  of  liberty,  and  implied  that  its  friends  were  not  re¬ 
publicans.  This  may  have  been  calculated  to  make  impressions  dis¬ 
advantageous  ta  those  gentlemen  who  favor  this  new  plan  of  govern¬ 
ment,  and  impressions  of  this  kind  are  not  easily  eradicated.  I  con¬ 
ceive  that  I  may  say  with  truth  that  the  friends  of  that  paper  are  true 
republicans,  and  by  no  means  less  attached  to  liberty  than^those  who 
oppose  it.  The  verity  of  this  does  not  depend  on  my  assertion,  but 
on  the  lives  and  well  known  characters  of  different  gentlemen  in  dif¬ 
ferent  parts  of  the  continent.  I  trust  the  friends  of  that  government 
will  oppose  the  efforts  of  despotism  as  its  opposers. 

Much  is  said  by  gentlemen  out  of  doors,.  They  ought  to  urge  all 
their  objections  here;  I  hope  they  will  offer  them  here;  I  shall  con¬ 
fine  myself  to  what  is  said  here.  In  all  his  rage  tor  democracy  and 
zeal,  for  the  rights  of  the  people,  how  often  does  he  express  his  ad¬ 
miration  of  that  king  and  parliament  over  the  Atlantic!  But  we  re¬ 
publicans  are  contemned  and  despised.  Here,  Sir  I  conceive  that 
implication  might  operate  against  himself. 

He  tells  us  that  he  is  a  staunch  republican,  and  that  he  adores 
liberty.  I  believe  him,  and  when  I  do  so,  I  wonder  that  he  should 
say,  that  a  kingly  government  is  superior  to  that  system  which  we 
admire.  He  tells  you  that  it  cherishes  a  standing  army,  and  that 
militia  alone  ought  to  be  depended  upon  for  the  defence  of  every  free 
country.  There  is  pot  a  gentleman  in  this  house — there  is  no  man 
■without  these  walls  (not  even  the  gentlemen  himself)  who  admires 
the  militia  more  than  I  do.  Without  vanity  I  may  say,  I  have  had 
different  experience  of  their  service,  from  that  of  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman.  It  was  my  fortune  to  be  a  soldier  of  my  country.  In  the 
discharge  of  my  duty,  I  knew  the  worth  of  militia.  I  have  seen 
them  perform  feats  that  would  do  honor  to  the  first  veterans,  and 
submitting  to  what  would  daunt  German  soldiers.  I  saw  what  the 
honorable  gentleman  did  not  see — our  men  fighting  with  the  troops 
of  that  king  which  he  so  much  admires.  I  have  seen  proofs  of  the 
wisdom  of  that  paper  on  your  table.  I  have  seen  incontrovertible 
evidence  that  militia  cannot  always  be  relied  upon.  I  could  enumer 
ate  many  instances,  but  one  will  suffice.  Let  the  gentleman  recol¬ 
lect  the  action  of  Guilford.  The  American  regular  troops  behaved 
there  with  the  most  gallant  intrepidity.  What  did  the  militia  do? 
The  greatest  numbers  of  them  fled.  Their  abandonment  ol  the 
regulars  occasioned  the  loss  of  the  field.  Had  the  line  been  suppor¬ 
ted  that  day  Cornwallis,  instead  of  surrendering  at  York,  would 
have  laid  down  his  arms  at  Guildford, 


DEBATES. 


j86 


This  plan  provides  for  the  public  defence  as  it  ought  to  do.  Reg¬ 
ulars  are  to  be  employed  when  necessary,  and  the  service  of  the 
militia  will  always  be  made  use  of.  This,  sir,  will  promote  agri¬ 
cultural  industry  and  skill,  and  military  discipline  and  science. 

I  cannot  understand  the  implication  of  the  honorable  gentleman, 
that  because  congress  may  arm  the  militia,  the  states  cannot  do  it  s 
nor  do  I  understand  the  reverse  of  the  proposition.  The  states  are 
by  no  part  of  the  plan  before  you,  precluded  from  arming  and  dis¬ 
ciplining  the  militia,  should  congress  neglect  it*  In  the  course  of 
Saturday,  and  some  previous  harangues,  from  the  terms  in  which 
some  of  the  northern  states  were  spoken  of,  one  would  have  thought 
that  the  love  of  an  American  was  in  some  degree  criminal,  as  being 
incompatible  with  a  proper  degree  of  affection  for  a  Virginian.  The 
people  of  America,  Sir,  are  one  people.  I  love  the  people  of  the 
north,  not  because  they  have  adopted  the  constitution,  but,  because 
I  fought  with  them  as  my  countrymen,  and  because  I  consider  them 
as  such.  Does  it  follow  from  hence  that  I  have  forgotten  my  at¬ 
tachment  to  my  native  state!  In  all  local  matters  I  shall  be  a  Vir¬ 
ginian  :  in  those  of  a  general  nature,  I  shall  not  forget  that  I  am.  an 
American. 

He  has  called  on  the  house  to  expose  the  catalogue  of  evils  which 
would  justify  this  change  of  the  government.  I  appeal  to  gentle¬ 
men’s  candour,  has  not  a  most  mournful  detail  been  unfolded  here? 

In  the  course  of  the  debates  I  have  heard  from  those,  gentlemen 
who  have  advocated  the  new  system,  an  enumeration,  which  drew 
groans  from  my  very  soul,  but  which  did  not  draw  one  sight  from 
the  honorable  gentleman  over  the  way.  Permit  me  to  ask,  if  there 
be  an  evil  which  can  visit  mankind,  so  injurious  and  oppressive  in 
its  consequence  and  operation,  as  a  tender  law!  If  Pandora’s  box 
were  on  one  side  of  me,  and  a  tender  law  on  the  other,  I  would 
rather  submit  to  the  box  than  to  the  tender  law.  The  principle,  evil 
as  it  is,  is  not  so  base  and  pernicious  as  the  application.  It  breaks 
down  the  moral  character  of  your  people — robs  the  widow  of  her 
maintenance  ,  and  defrauds  the  offspring  of  his  food.  The  widow 
and  orphans  are  reduced  to  misery,  by  receiving  in  a  depreciated 
value,  money  which  the  husband  and  father  had  lent  out  of  friend¬ 
ship.  This  reverses  the  natural  course  of  things.  It  robs  the  in¬ 
dustrious  of  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  and  often  enables  the  idle  and 
rapacious  to  live  in  ease  and  comfort  at  the  expense  of  the  better 
part  of  the  community. 

Was  there  not  another  evil  but  the  possibility  of  continuing  such 
palpable  injustice,  I  would  object,  to  the  present  system.  But,  Sir, 
I  will  out  of  many  more,  mention  another.  How  are  your  domestic 
creditors  situated!  I  will  not  go  to  the  general  creditors.  I  mean 


VIRGINIA. 


1ST 


Lee,] 

the  military  creditor- — the  man,  who,  by  the  vices  of  your  system,  is 
urged  to  part  with  his  money  for  a  trival  consideration — the  poor 
man  who  has  the  paper  in  his  pocket,  for  which  he  can  receive  lit¬ 
tle  or  nothing.  There  is  a  greater  number  of  those  meritorious  men, 
than  the  honorable  gentleman  believes.  These  unfortunate  men  are 
compelled  to  receive  paper  instead  of  gold — paper,  which  nominally 
represents  something,  but  which  in  reality  represents  almost  noth¬ 
ing.  A  proper  government  could  do  them  justice,  but  the  present 
one  cannot  do  it.  They  are  therefore  forced  to  part  from  that  paper 
which  they  fought  for,  and  get  less  than  a  dollar  for  twenty  shil¬ 
lings.  I  would  for  my  part,  and  I  hope  eyery  other  gentleman  here 
would,  submit  to  the  inconvenience;  but  wThen  I  consider  that  the 
widows  of  gallant  heroes,  with  their  numerous  offspring,  are  labor¬ 
ing  under  the  most  distressingindigence,  and  that  these  poor  unhap¬ 
py  people  will  be  relieved  by  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  I  am 
still  more  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  this  change. 

But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  we  are  in  peace.  Does  he 
forget  the  insurrection  in  Massachusetts'?  Perhaps  he  did  not  ex¬ 
tend  his  philanthropy  to  that  quarter.  I  was  then  in  congress,  and 
had  a  proper  opportunity  to  know  the  circumstances  of  this  event. 
Had  Shays  been  possessed  of  abilities,  he  might  have  established 
that  favorite  system  ot  the  gentleman — kings,  lords  and  commons. 
Nothing  was  wanting  to  bring  about  a  revolution,  but  a  great  man 
to  head  the  insurgents  ;  but  fortunately  he  was  a  worthless  captain. 
There  were  30,000  stand  of  arms  nearly  in  his  power,  which  were 
defended  b,y  a  pensioner  of  this  country.  It  would  have  been  suffi¬ 
cient  had  he  taken  this  desposit.  He  failed  in  it;  but  even  after 
that  failure,  it  wTas  in  the  power  of  a  great  man  to  have  taken  it. 
But  he  wanted  design  and  knowledge.  Will  you  trust  to  the  want 
of  design  and  knowledge?  Suppose  another  insurrection  headed  by 
a  different  man  ;  what  will  follow?  Under  a  man  of  capacity,  the 
favorite  government  of  that  gentleman  might  have  been  established 
in  Massachusetts  and  extended  to  Virginia. 

But,  sir,  this  is  a  consolidated  government,  he  tells  us,  and  most 
feeling  does  be  dwell  on  the  imaginary  dangers  of  this  pretended 
consolidation,  I  did  suppose  that  an  honorable  gentleman,  whom  I 
do  not  now  see  (Mr.  Madison)  had  placed  thisam  such  a  clear  light, 
that  every  man  would  have  been  satisfied  with  it. 

ff  this  were  a  consolidated  government,  ought  it  not  to  be  ratified' 
by  a  majority  of  the  people  as  individuals,  and  not  as  states?  Sup¬ 
pose  Virginia,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts  andi  Pennsylvania  had 
ratified  it;  these  four  states  being  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  would,  by  their  adoption,  have  made  it  binding  on  all  the  states, 
had  this  been  a  consolidated  government.  But  it  is  only  the  govern- 


188 


DEBATES. 


[Lee. 

ifnent  of  those  seven  states  who  have  adopted  it.  If  the  honorable 
gentleman  will  attend  to  this,  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  consolidation. 

Direct  taxation  is  another  objection,  on  which  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tlemen  expatiates.  This  has  been  answered  by  several  able  gentle¬ 
men  ;  but  as  the  honorable  gentleman  reverts  to  the  subject,  I  hope 
I  will  be  excused  in  saying  a  little  on  it.  If  union  be  necessary, 
direct  taxes  are  also  necessary  for  its  support.  If  it  be  an  inconve¬ 
nience,  it  results  from  the  union  ;  and  we  must  take  its  disadvanta¬ 
ges  with  it :  besides,  it  will  render  it  necessary  to  recur  to  the  san¬ 
guinary  method  which  some  gentlemen  are  said  to  admire.  Had 
the  Amphictionic  council  had  the  power  contained  in  that  paper, 
would  they  have  sent  armies  to  levy  iponey?  Will  the  honorable 
gentleman  say,  that  it  is  more  eligible  and  humane,  to  collect  money 
by  carrying  fire  and  sword  through  the  country,  than  by  the  peacea¬ 
ble  mode  of  raising  money  of  the  people,  through  the  medium  of  an 
officer  of  peace,  when  it  is  necessary! 

But  says  he,  “The  president  will  enslave  you,  congress  will 
trample  on  your  liberties,  a  few  regiments  will  appear— -Mr.  Chief 
Justice  must  give  way — our  mace  bearer  is  no  match  for  a  regi¬ 
ment.”  It  was  inhuman  to  place  an  individual  against  a  whole  reg¬ 
iment.  A  few  regiments  will  not  avail — I  trust  the  supporters  of 
the  government  would  get  the  better  of  many  regiments.  Were  so 
mad  an  attempt  made,  the  people  would  assemble  in  thousands,  and 
drive  30  times  the  number  of  their  few  regiments.  We  would  then 
do  as  we  have  already  done  with  the  regiments  of  that  Jung  which  he 
so  often  tells  us  of.  *  * , 

The  public  liberty,  says  he  is  designed  to  be  destroyed.  W’hat 
does  he  mean?  Does  he  mean  that  we  who  are  friends  to  that  gov- 
ernment,  are  not  friends  to  liberty?  No  man  dares  to  say  so.  Does 
he  mean  that  he  is  a  greater  admirer  of  liberty  that  we  are?  Per¬ 
haps  so.  But  I  undertake  to  say,  that  when  it  will  be  necessary  to 
struggle  in  the  cause  of  freedom  ;  he  will  find  himself  equalled  by 
thousands  of  those  who  support  this  constitution.  The  purse  of  the 
people  of  Virginia  is  not  given  up  by  that  paper :  they  can  take  no 
more  of  our  money  than  it  is  necessary  to  pay  our  share  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  debts,  and  provide  for  the  general  welfare.  Were  it  otherwise, 
■no  man  would  be  louder  against  it  than  myself. 

He  has  represented  our  situation,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
other  states.  What  does  he  mean?  I  ask  if  it  be  fair  to  attempt 
to  influence  gentlemen  by  particular  applications  to  l@cal  interests? 
I  say,  it  is  not  fair.  Am  I  to  be  told,  when  I  come  to  deliberate  on 
the  interest  of  Virginia,  that  it  obstructs  the  interest  of  the  county 
of  Westmoreland?  Is  this  obstruction  a  sufficient  reason  to  neglect 
the  collective  interests  of  Virginia?  Were  it  of  a  local  nature,  it 


VIRGINIA. 


189 


Lee.] 


would  be  right  to  prefer  it;  but  being  of  a  general  nature,  the  local 
interest  must  give  way.  I  trust  then  that  gentlemen  will  consider, 
that  the  object  of  their  deliberations  is  of  a  general  nature.  I  disre¬ 
gard  the  argument  which  insinuated  the  propriety  of  attending  tolo- 
calties ;  and  I  hope  that  the  gentlemen  to  whom  it  was  addressed, 
regard  too  much  the  happiness  of  the  community  to  be  influenced 

by  it. 

But  he  tells  you,  that  the  Mississippi  is  insecure  unless  you  re¬ 
ject  this  system,  and  that  the  transactions  relating  to  it  were/carried 
on  under  a  veil  of  secrecy.  His  arguments  on  this  subject  are  equal¬ 
ly  as  defective,  as  those  I  have  just  had  under  consideration.  But 
I  feel  myself  called  on  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  to  come  forward 
and  tell  the  truth  about  the  transactions  respecting  the  Mississippi. 
In  every  action  of  my  life,  in  which  I  have  been  concerned,  wheth¬ 
er  as  the  soldier  oi  politician,  the  good  of  my  country  was  my  first 
wish.  I  have  attended  not  only  to  the  /good  of  the  United  States, 
but  also  to  that  ol^  particular  districts.  There  are  men  of  integrity 
and  truth  here,  who  were  also  then  in  congress.  I  call  on  them  to 
put  me  right  with  respect  to  those  transactions.  As  far  as  I  could 
gather  from  what  was  then  passing,  I  believe  there  was  not  a  gen¬ 
tleman  in  that  congress,  who  had  an  idea  of  surrendering  the  navi- 
gation  of  that  river.  They  thought  of  the  best  mode  of  securing  it : 
some  thought  one  way,  and  some  another  way.  I  was  one  of  those 
men  who  thought  the  mode  which  has  been  alluded  to,  the  best  to  se¬ 
cure  it.  I  shall  never  deny  that  it  was  my  opinion.  I  was  one  pecu¬ 
liarly  interested.  I  had  a  fortune  in  that  country,  purchased,  not  by 
paper  money ,  but  by  gold,  to  the  amount  of  8,000  pounds.  But 
private  interest  could  not  have  influenced  me.  The  public  welfare 
was  my  criterion  in  my  opinion.  I  united  private  interest  to  public 
interest,  not  of  the  whole  people  of  Virginia,  but  of  the  United 
States.  I  thought  I  was  promoting  the  real  interest  of  the  people. 
But,  says  he,  it  was  under  the  veil  of  secrecy.  There  was  no  pe¬ 
culiar  or  uncommon  desire  manifested  of  concealing  those  transac¬ 
tions.  They  were  carried  on  in  the  same  manner  with  others  of  the 
same  nature,  and  consonant  to  the  principles  of  the  confederation. 
I  saw  no  anxiety  on  the  occasion.  I  wish  he  would  send  to  the 
president  to  know  their  secrets.  He  would  be  gratified  fully. 

The  honorable  member  this  day,  among  other  things,  gave  us  a 
statement,  of  those  states  that  have  passed  the  new  system,  of  those 
who  have  not,  and  of  those  who  would  probably  not  pass  it.  He 
called  his  assertions  facts ;  but  I  expected  he  would  shew  us  some¬ 
thing  to  prove  their  existence. 

He  tells  us,  that  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode  Island  have  refused 
it.  Is  that  a  fact?  It  is  not  a  fact .  New  Hampshire  has  not  refu- 


190 


DEBATES. 


x[Lee. 


sed  it.  That  state  postponed  her  ultimate  decision  till  slife  could 
know  what  Massachusetts  would  do::  and  whatever  the  gentleman 
may  say  of  borderers,  the  people  of  that  state  were  very  right  in 
conducting  themselves  as  they  did.  With  respect  to  Rhode  Island, 

I  hardly  know  any  thing.  That  small  state  has  so  rebelled  against 
justice,  and  so  knocked  down  the  bulwarks  of  probity, ‘rectitude  and 
truth,  that  nothing  rational  or  just  can  be  expected  from  her. 

She  has  not,  however,  1  believe,  called  a  convention  to  deliberate 
on  it,  much  less  formally  refused  it.  From  her  situation,  it  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  she  must  adopt  it,  unless  she  departs  from  the  primary 
maxims  of  human  nature,  which  are  those  of  self-preservation. 
New  York  and  North  Carolina  are  so  high  in  opposition,  he  tells 
us,  that  they  will  certainly  reject  it1?  Here  is  another  of  his  facts ; 
and  he  says,  he  has  the  highest  authority.  As  he  dislikes  the  veil 
olgsecrecy,  I  beg  he  would  tell  us  that  high  authority  from  which  he 
gets  this  fact.  Has  he  official  communications!  Have  theexecu- 
■■fcive  of  those  states  informed  him!  Has  our  executive  been  apprised 
of  it?  I  believe  not.  I  hold  his  unsupported  authority  in  contempt. 

Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  New  Jersey  have  adopted,  but,  says 
he,  they  were  governed  by  local  considerations,  What  are  these 
local  considerations?  The  honorable  gentleman  draws  advantages 
from  every  source  ;  but  his  arguments  operate  very  often  against 
himself.  I  admired  the  State  of  Pennsylvania — she  deserves  the 
attachment  of  every  lover  of  his  country.  Poor  Pennsylvania,  says 
he,  has  been  tricked  into  it.  What  an  insult!  The  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  would  not  say  so  of  an  individual — I  know  his  politeness 
too  well.  Will  he  insult  the  majority  of  a  free  country?  Penn¬ 
sylvania  is  a  respectable  state.  Though  not  so  extensive  as  Vir¬ 
ginia,  she  did  as  much  as  any  state,  in  proportion,  during  the  war: 
and  has  done  as  much  since  the  peace.  She  has  done  as  much  in 
every  situation,  and  her  citizens  have  been  as  remarkable  for  their 
virtue  and  science  as  those  of  any  state.  The  honorable  ge  ntleman 
has  told  you,  that  Pennsylvania  has  been  tricked  into  it ;  and  in  so 
saying  has  insulted  the  majority  of  a  free  country,  in  a  manner  in 
which  I  would  not  dare  to  insult  any  private  gentleman.  The  other 
adopting  states  have  not  been  tricked  into  it,  it  seems.  Why?  The 
honorable  gentleman  cannot  tell  us  why  these  have  not  been  tricked 
into  it,  any  more  than  he  can  tell  why  Pennsylvania  has  been 
tricked  into  it.  Is  it  because  of  their  superior  power  and  respecta¬ 
bility  :  or,  is  it  the  consequence  of  their  local  situation?  But  the 
state  of  New  York  has  too  much  virtue  to  be  governed  by  local  con¬ 
siderations.  He  insinuates  this  by  his  assertion  that  she  will  not 
regard  the  examples  of  the  other  states.  How  can  he,  without  be¬ 
ing  inconsistent,  and  without  perverting  tacts,  pietend  to  say,  that 


VIRGINIA, 


191 


Lee.] 

New  York  is  not  governed  by  local  considerations  in  her  opposition? 
Is  she  not  influenced  by  the  local  consideration  ©f  retaining  that  im¬ 
post  of  which  he  says,  Connecticut  and  New  Jersey  wish  to  get  a 
participation?  What  does  he  say  of  North  Carolina?  How  will  lo¬ 
cal  considerations  affect  her?  If  the  principle  be  uniform,  she  will 
be  led  by  the  local  consideration  of  wishing  to  get  a  participation 
of  the  impost  of  the  importing  states.  Is  to  be  supposed,  that  she 
will  be  so  blind  to  her  own  interest,  as  to  depart  from  this  princi¬ 
ple? 

When  he  attempted  to  prove,  that  you  ought  not  to  adopjMfhat  pa¬ 
per  which  I  admire,  he  told  you  that  it  was  untrodden  ground.  This 
objection  goes  to  the  adoption  of  any  government.  The  British  go¬ 
vernment  ought  to  be  proposed  perhaps.  It  is  trodden  ground.  I. 
know  not  of  any  reason  to  operate  against  a  system,  because  it  is 
untrodden  ground.  , 

The  honorable  gentleman  objects  to  the  publication  from  time  to 
•  '  •  •  •  ^  #  # 
time,  as  being  ambiguous  and  uncertain.  Does  not,  from  time  to  time 

signify  convenient  time?  If  it  admits  of  an  extension  of  time,  does 
it  not  equally  admit/ of  publishing  the  accounts  at  very  short  periods? 
For  argument  sake,  they  say  they  may  postpone  the  publications  of 
the  public  accounts  to  the  expiration  of  every  ten  years  :  will  their 
constituents  be  satisfied  with  this  conduct!  Will  they  not  discard 
them,  and  elect  other  men  who  will  publish  the  accounts  as  often  as 
they  ought^  It  is  also  in  their  power  to  publish  every  ten  days.  Is 
it  not  more  probable,  that  they  will  do  their  duty,  than  that  they 
will  neglect  it,  especially  as  their  interest  is  inseparably  connected 
With  their  duty?  He  says  they  may  conceal  them  for  a  century. 
Did  you  ever  hear  so  trivial  and  so  captious  an  argument?  I  felt 
when  the  great  genius  of  the  gentleman  nodded  on  that  occasion. 
Another  objection  of  the  honorable  gentleman  (whom  I  cannot  fol¬ 
low  through  all  his  windings  and  turnings)  is,  that  these  parts  of 
the  constitution,  which  are  in  favor  of  privileges,  are  not  so  clearly 
expressed  as  those  parts  which  concede  powers.  I  beg  your  atten¬ 
tion,  because  this  is  a  leading  distinction.  As  long  as  the  privilege 
of  representation  is  well  secured,  our  liberties  cannot  be  easily  en¬ 
dangered.  I  conceive  this  is  secured  in  this  country  more  fully  than 
in  any  other.  How  are  we,  the  people  of  America,  as  land-holders, 
compared  to  the  people  of  all  the  world  besides?  Vassalage  is  not 
known  here.  A  small  quantity  of  land  entitles  a  man  to  a  freehold 
— land  is  pretty  equally  divided.  And  the  law  of  descents  in  this 
•country,  will  carry  this  division  farther  and  farther  :  perhaps  even 
to  an  extreme.  This,  of  itself,  secures  this  great  privilege.  Is  it 
so  in  any  other  country?  Is  it  so  in  England?  We  differ  in  this, 
from  all  other  countries.  I  admire  this  paper  in  this  respect.  It 


192 


DEBATES. 


[Lee. 

does  not  impair  our  right  of  suffrage.  Whoever  will  have  a  right 
to  vote  for  a  representative  to  our  legislature,  will  also  have  a  right 
to  vote  for  a  federal  representative.  This  will  render  that  branch  of 
congress  very  democratic.  We  have  a  right  to  send  a  certain  pro¬ 
portion.  If  we  do  not  exert  that  right,  it  will  be  our  folly. 

It  was  necessary  to  provide  against  ‘licentiousnes,  which  is  so 
natural  to  our  climate.  I  dread  more  from  the  licentiousness  of  the 
people  than  from  the  bad  government  of  rulers.  Our^privileges  are 
not  however  in  danger :  they  are  better  secured  than  any  bill  of 
rights  could  have  secured  them. 

I  say  that  this  new  system  shews  in  stronger  term  than  words 
could  declare,  that  the  liberties  of  the  people  are  secure.  It  goes 
on  the  principle  that  all  power  is  in  the  people,  and  that  rulers  have 
no  powers  but  what  are  enumerated  in  that  paper.  When  a  ques¬ 
tion  arises  with  respect’  to  the  legality  of  any  power,  exercised  or 
assumed  by  congress,  it  is  plain  on  the  side  of  the  governed.  Is  it 
enumerated  in  the  constitution 1  If  it  be,  it  is  legal  and  just.  It  is 
otherwise  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional.  Candor  must  confess, 
that  it  is  infinitely  more  attentive  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  than 
any  state  government. 

[Mr  Lee  then  said,  that  under  the  state  governments  the  people 
reserved  to  themselves  certain  enumerated  rights,  and  that  the  rest 
were  vested  in  their  rulers.  That  consequently  the  powers  reserved 
to  the  people,  were  but  an  inconsiderable  exception  from  what  were 
given  to  their  rulers.  But  that  in  the  federal  government,  the  rulers 
of  the  people  were  vested  with  certain  defined  powers,  and  that  what 
was  not  delegated  Iq  those  rulers  were  retained  by  the  people.  The 
consequence  of  this,  he  said,  was,  that  the  limited  powers  were  only 
an  exception  to  those  which  rested  in  the  people  and  that  they  knew 
what  they  had  given  up,  and  could  be  in  no  danger.  He  exemplifi¬ 
ed  the  proposition  in  a  familiar  manner.  He  observed,  that  if  a  mail 
delegated  certain  powers  to  an  agent,  it  would  be  an  insult  upon 
common  sense,  to  suppose,  that  the  agent  could  legally  transact  any 
business  for  his  principal,  which  was  not  contained  in  the  commis¬ 
sion  whereby  the  powers  were  delegated.  But  that  if  a  man  em¬ 
powered  his  representative  or  agent  to  transact  all  his  business  ex¬ 
cept  certain  enumerated  parts,  the  clear  result  was,  that  the  agent 
could  lawfully  transact  every  possible  part  of  his  principal’s  busi¬ 
ness  except  the  enumerated  parts,  and  added,  that  these  plain  pro¬ 
positions  were  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  inutility  and  folly,  (were 
he  permitted  to  use  the  expression)  of  bills  of  rights.] 

He  then  continued — I  am  convinced  that  that  paper  secures  the 
liberty  of  Virginia,  and  of  the  United  States.  I  ask  myself,  if  there 
be  a  single  power  in  it,  which  is  not  necessary  for  the  support  of 
the  union;  and  as  far  as  my  reasoning  goes,  1  say,  that  if  you  deprive 
itof  one  single  power  contained  in  it,  it  will  be  “  Vox  et praeterea  nihil." 
Those  who  are  to  go  to  congress  will  be  the  servants  of  the  people. 


VIRGINIA. 


193 


Randolph.] 

They  are  created  and  deputed  by  us,  and  removable  by  us.  Is  there 
a  greater  security  than  this  in  our  state  government?  To  fortify  this 
security,  is  there  not  a  constitutional  remedy  in  the  government,  to 
reform  any  errors  which  shall  be  found  inconvenient?  Although  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  dwelt  so  long  upon  it,  he  has  not  made  it 
appear  otherwise.  The  confederation  can  neither  render  us  happy  at 
home,  nor  respectable  abroad.  I  conceive  this  system  will  do  both. 
The  two  gentlemen  who  have  been  in  the  grand  convention  have  pro¬ 
ved  incontestibly,  that  the  fears  arising  from  the  powers  of  congress, 
are  groundless.  Having  now  gone  through  some  of  the  principal  parts 
of  the  gentleman’s  harrangue,  I  shall  take  up  but  a  few  moments  in 
•replying  to  its  conclusion. 

I  contend  for  myself,  and  the  friends  of  the  constitution,  that  we 
are  as  great  friends  to  liberty  as  he  or  any  other  person;  and  that  we 
will  not  be  behind  in  exertions  in  its  defence,  when  it  is  invaded. 
For  my  part,  I  trust,  that  young  as  I  am,  I  will  be  trusted  in  the  sup¬ 
port  of  freedom,  as  far  as  the  honorable  gentleman.  I  feel  that  indig¬ 
nation  and  contempt  with  respect  to  his  previous  amendments,  which 
he  expresses  against  posterior  amendments.  I  can  see  no  danger 
from  a  previous  ratification.  I  see  infinite  dangers  from  previous 
amendments.  I  shall  give  my  suffrage  for  the  former,  because  I  think 
the  happiness  of  my  country  depends  upon  it.  To  maintain  and  secure 
*hat  happiness,  the  first  object  of  my  wishes.  I  shall  brave  all  storms 
and  political  dangers. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Having  consumed  heretofore  so  much  of 
your  time,  I  did  not  intend  to  trouble  you  again  so  soon.  But  now 
I  call  on  this  committee,  by  way  of  right,  to  permit  me  to  answer 
3ome  severe  charges  against  the  friends  of  the  new  constitution.  It 
is  a  right  I  am  entitled  to,  and  shall  have.  I  have  spoken  twice  in 
this  committee.  I  have  shewn  the  principles  which  actuated  the 
general  convention,  and  attempted  to  prove,  that  after  the  ratification 
of  the  proposed  system,  by  so  many  states,  the  preservation  of  the 
Pinion  depended  on  its  adoption  by  us.  I  find  myself  attacked  in  the 
most  |ii liberal  manner,  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  (Mr.  Henry.) 
f  disdain  his  aspersions,  and  his  insinuations.  His  asperity  is  war¬ 
ranted  by  no  principle  of  parliamentary  decency,  nor  compatible  with 
the  least  shadow  of  friendship;  and  if  our  friendship  must  fall — let  it 
Jail ,  like  Lucifer,  never  to  rise  again!  Let  him  remember  that  it  is  not  to 
answer  him,  but  to  satisfy  his  respectable  audience,  that  1  now  get  up. 
He  has  accused  me  of  inconsistency  in  this  very  respectable  assem-  , 
kly.  Sir,  if  I  do  not  stand  on  the  bottom  of  integrity,  and  pure  lov® 
for  Virginia,  as  much  as  those  who  can  be  most  clamorous,  I  wish 
to  resign  my  existence.  Consistency  consists  in  actions,  and  not  in 
«mpty  specious  words.  Ever  since  the  first  entrance  into  that  lede- 
vol.  3.  13 


DEBATES. 


JH 


[Randolph* 


ral  business,  I  have  been  inevitably  governed  by  an  invincible  attach¬ 
ment  to  the  happiness  of  the  people  of  America,  Federal  measures 
nad  been  before  that  time  repudiated.  The  augmentation  of  congres¬ 
sional  powers  was  dreaded.  The  imbecility  of  the  confederation 
was  proved  and  acknowledged.  When  I  had  the  honor  of  being  de¬ 
puted  to  the  federal  convention  to  revise  the  existing  system,  I  was 
impressed  with  the  necessity  of  a  more  energetic  government  and 
thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  salvation  of  the  people  of  America  de¬ 
pended  on  an  intimate  and  firm  union.  The  honorable  gentlemen 
there  can  say,  that  when  I  went  thither,  no  man  was  a  stronger  friend 
to  such  an  union  than  myself.  I  informed  you  why  I  refuse  to  sign, 

I  understand  not  him  who  wishes  to  give  a  full  scope  to  licentious¬ 
ness  and  dissipation,  who  would  advise  me  to  reject  the  proposed 
plan,  and  plunge  us  into  anarchy. 

[Here  his  excellency  Governor  Randolph  read  the  conclusion  of 
his  public  letter,  (wherein  he  says,  that  notwithstanding  his  objec¬ 
tions  to  the  constitution,  he  would  adopt  it  rather  than  lose  the  union) 
and  proceeded  to  prove  the  consistency  of  his  present  opinion,  with 
his  former  conduct  ;  when  Mr.  Henry  arose,  and  declared  that  he 
had  no  personal  intention  of  offending  any  one — that  he  did  his  duty 
— but  that  he  did  not  mean  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any  gentleman 
— that  he  was  sorry,  if  he  offended  the  honorable  gentlemen  without 
intending  it — and  that  every  gentleman  had  a  right  to  maintain  hi* 
opinion.  His  excellency  then  said,  that  he  was  relieved  by  what  the 
honorable  gentleman  said,  that  were  it  not  for  the  concession  of  the 
gentleman,  he  would  have  made  some  men’s  hair  stand  on  end,  by 
the  disclosure  of  certain  facts.  Mr.  Henry  then  requested,  that  if 
he  had  any  thing  to  say  against  him  to  disclose  it.  His  excellency 
then  continued — That  as  thrre  were  some  gentlemen  there  who  might 
not  be  satisfied  by  the  recantation  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  with¬ 
out  being  informed  he  should  give  them  some  information  on  the 
subject.  That  his  ambition  had  ever  been  to  promote  the  union — 
that  he  was  no  more  attached  to  it  now  than  he  always  had  been — 
and  that  he  could  in  some  degree  prove  it  by  the  paper  which  he  held 
in  his  hand,  which  was  his  public  letter.  He  then  read  a  considera¬ 
ble  part  of  his  letter,  wherein  he  expressed  his  friendship  to  the 
union.  He  then  informed  the  committee,  that  on  the  day  of  election 
of  delegates  for  the  convention,  for  the  county  of  Henrico,  it  being 
incumbent  upon  him  to  give  his  opinion,  he  told  the  respectable  free¬ 
holders  of  that  county  his  sentiments  that  he  wished  not  to  become 
a  member  of  that  convention — that  he  had  not  attempted  to  create  a 
belief,  that  he  would  vote  against  the  constitution — that  he  did  real¬ 
ly  unfold  to  them  his  actual  opinion  ;  which  was  perfectly  reconcilea- 
ble  with  the  suffrage  he  was  going  to  give  in  favor  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion.  He  then  read  part  of  a  letter  which  he  had  written  to  his  con¬ 
stituents  on  the  subject,  which  was  expressive  of  sentiments  amica¬ 
ble  to  an  union  with  other  states.  He  then  threw  down  the  letter  on 
.the  clerk’s  table,  and  then  declared  that  it  might  lie  there  for  the  in¬ 
spection  of  the  curious  and  mal,  cious .] 

He  then  proceeded  thus — I  am  asked,  why  I  have  thought  proper 


VIRGINIA. 


Randolph.] 


135 


to  patronise  this  government?  Not  because  I  am  one  of  those  illu¬ 
minated,  but  because  the  felicity  of  my  country  requires  it.  The 
the  highest  honors  have  no  allurements  to  charm  me.  'If  he  be  as 
little  attached  to  public  places  as  I  am,  he  must  be  free  from  ambition. 
It  is  true  that  I  am- now  in  an  elevated  situation;  but  I  consider  it  as 
a  far  less  happy  or  eligible  situation,  than  that  of  an  inconsiderable 
landholder.  Give  me  peace — ‘I  ask  no  more.  I  ask  no  honor  or 
gratification.  Give  me  public  peace,  and  I  will  carve  the  rest  for 
myself.  The  happiness  of  my  country  is  my  first  wish.  I  think  it 
necessary  for  that  happiness,  that  this  constitution  be  now'  adapted  ; 
for  in  spite  of  the  representation  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  I  see  a 
storm  growling  over  Virginia.  No  man  has  more  respect  for  Vir¬ 
ginia,  or  a  greater  affection  for  her  citizens  than  I  have  ;  but  I  can¬ 
not  flatter  you  with  a  kinder  or  more  agreeable  representation,  while 
we  are  surrounded  by  so  many  dangers,  and  when  there  is  so  much. 

rancor  in  the  hearts  of  your  citizens. 

I  beg  the  honorable  gentleman  to  pardon  me  for  reminding  him, 

that  his  historical  leferences  and  quotations  are  not  accurate.  If  he 
errs  so  much  with  respect  to  his  fads,  as  he  has  done  in  history,  we 
cannot  depend  on  his  information  or  assertions.  He  had  early  in  the 
debates  instanced  Holland  as  a  happy  democracy,  highly  worthy  of 
our  imitation.  From  thence  he,wrent  over  the  mountains  to  Switzer¬ 
land,  to  find  anQttier.demoeracy.  He  represented  all  those  cantons 
as  being  of  the  democratic  kind.  -I -wish  he  had  reflected  a  little  more 
and  distinguished  between  those  that  are  democratical  from  those 
which  are  aristocratical.  He  ha3  already  been  reminded  of  his  er¬ 
rors.  I  should  not] now  put  him  right  with  respect  to  history,  had  he 
not  continued  his  mistakes.  Consult  all  writers  from  Sir  William 
Temple  to  those  of  more  modern  times  ;  they  will  inform  you,  that 
"the  republic  of  Holland  is  an  aristocracy. — He  has  inveighed  against 
ithe  stadtholder.  I  do  not  understand  his  application  of  this  to  the 
American  President.  It  is  well  known  that  there  ifnot  for  the  stadt- 
.holder,  the  republic  would  have  been  ruined  long  ago.  Holland  it 
seems  has  no  ten  miles  square.  But  she  has  the  Hague,  where  the 
deputies  of  the  states  assemble.  It  has  been  found  necessary  to  have 
a  fixed  place  of  meeting.  But  the  influence  which  it  has  given  the 
province  of  Holland  to  have  the  seat  of  the  government  within  its 
territory,  subject,  in  some  respect  to  its  control,  has  been  injuiious  to 
the  other  provinces.  The  wisdom  of  the  convention  is  therefore 
manifest  in  granting  the  congress  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the 
place  of  their  session.  1  am  going  to  correct  a  still  greater  error 
which  he  has  committed,  not  in  order  to  shew  any  little  knowledge  of 
history  I  have  (for  I  am  by  no  means  satisfied  with  its  extent)  but  to 

endeavor  to  prevent  any  impressions  from  being  made  by  improper 
and  mistaken  representations. 


1 9G 


DEBATES. 


Banmlph.1 


He  said  that  Magna  Charta  destroyed  all  implication.  This  was 
not  the  object  of  Magna  Charfa,  but  to  destroy  the  power  of  the 
king,  and  secure  the  liberty  of  the  people.  The  bill  of  rights  was 
intended  to  restore  the  government  to  its  primitive  principles. 

We  are  harrassed  by  quotations  from  Holland  and  Switzerland, 
which  are  inapplicable  in  themselves,  and  not  founded  in  fact. 

I  am  surprised  at  his  proposition  of  previous  amendments,  and 
his  assertion,  that  subsequent  ones  will  cause  disunion.  Shall  we 
not  lose  our  influence  and  weight  in  the  government  to  bring  about 
amendments,  if  we  propose  them  previously'?  Will  not  the  senators 
be  chosen,  and  the  electors  of  the  president  be  appointed,  and  the 
governments  brought  instantly  into  action  after  the  ratification  ot 
nine  states?  In  this  disunion,  when  the  effect  proposed  will  be  pro¬ 
duced?  But  no  man  here  is  willing  to  believe  what  the  honorable 
gentleman  says  on  tills  point.  I  was  In  hopes  we  should  come  to 
some  degree  of  order*  I  fear  that  order  is  no  more.  I  believe  that 
we  should  confine  ourselves  to  the  particular  clause  under  consider¬ 
ation,  and  to  such  other  clauses  as  might  be  connected  with  it. 

Why  have  we  been  told,  that  maxims  can  alone  save  nations — 
that  ouf  maxims  are  our  bill  of  rights — and  that  the  liberty  of  the 
press,  trial  by  jufy,  and  religion,  are  destroyed?  Give  me  leave  to 
say,  that  the  maxims  of  Virginia  are  union  and  justice. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  past  by  my  observations  with  re¬ 
spect  to  British  debts.  He  has  thought  proper  to  be  silent  on  this 
subject.  My  observations  must  therefore  have  full  force.  Justice 
is,  and  ought  to  be  our  maxim  ;  and  must,  be  that  of  every  temperate, 
moderate,  and  upright  man.  I  should  not  say  so  much  on  this  occa¬ 
sion,  were  it  not  that  I  perceive  that  the  floweTS  of  rhetoric  are  per¬ 
verted,  in  order  to  make  impressions  unfavorable  and  inimical  to  aa 
impartial  and  candid  decision.  What  security  can  aiise  from  a  bill 
of  rights?  The  predeliction  for  it  has  arisen  from  a  misconception 
of  its  principles.  It  cannot  secure  the  liberties  of  this  country.  A 
bill  of  rights  was  used  in  England  to  limit  the  king’s  prerogative, 
ho  could  trample  on  the  liberties  of  the  people,  in  every  case  which 
was  not  within  the  restraint  ot  the  bill  of  rights. 

Our  situation  is  radically  different  from  that  of  the  people  of  En¬ 
gland.  What  have  we  to  do  with  bills  of  rights?  Six  or  seven  state* 
have  none.  Massachusetts  has  declared  her  bill  of  rights  as  part  of  her 
constitution,  Virginia  has  a  bill  of  rights,  but  is  it  no  part  of  tbs 
constitution.  By  not  saying  whether  it  is  paramount  to  the  consti¬ 
tution  ot  not,  it  has  left  us  in  confusion  Is  the  bill  of  rights  consist- 
ent  with  the  constitution.  Why  then  is  it  not  inserted  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion?  Does  it  add  any  thing  to  the  constitution?  Why  is  it  not  the 
•Misiitution?  Does  it  except  any  thing  from  the  constitution  ;  why 


•Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA, 


w 


-not  put  the  exceptions  in  the  constitution.  Does  it  oppose  the  constitu¬ 
tion]  This  will  produce  mischief.  The  judges  will  dispute  which 
is  paramount,  some  will  say,  the  bill  of  rights  is  paramount :  oth- 
ers  will  say,  that  the  constitution  being  subsequent  in  point  of 
time,  must  be  paramount.  A  bill  of  rights  therefore,  accurately 
speaking,  is  quite  useless,  if  not  dangerous  in  a  republic. 

I  had  objections  to  this  constitution.  I  still  have  objections  to  it. 
[Here  he  read  the  objections  which  appeared  in  his  public  letter.] 
The  gentleman  ask,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  you  are  now  .Willing 
to  take  it]  I  answer,  that  I  see  Virginia  in  such  danger,  that  were 
its  defects  greater,  I  would  adopt  it.  These  dangers,  though  not 
immediately  present  to  our  view,  yet  may  not  be  far  distant,  if  we 
disunite  from  the  ether  states.  I  will  join  any  man  in  endeavoring 
to  get  amendments,  after  the  danger  of  disunion  is  removed  by  a 
previous  adoption. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  federal  spirit  leads  to  dis- 
union.  The  federal  spirit  is  not  superior  to  human  nature,  but  it 
cannot  be  justly  charged  with  having  a  tendency  to  disunion.  If 
We  were  to  take  the  gentleman’s  discrimination  as  our  guide,  the 
spirit  of  Virginia  would  be  dictatorial.  Virginia  dictates  to  eight 
states.  A  single  amendment  proposed  as  the  condition  of  our  ac¬ 
cession,  will  operate  total  disunion.  Where  is  the  state  that  shall 
conceive  itself  obliged  to  aid  Virginia]  The  honorable  gentleman 
says,  there  is  no  danger — great  in  imagination,  but  nothing  in  reali¬ 
ty.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this]  What  would  this  state  do,  if 
opposed  alone  to  the  arms  of  France  or  Great  Britain]  Would 
there  be  no  danger  in  such  a  case]  Was  not  the  assistance  of 
France  necessary  to  enable  the  United  States  to  repel  the  attack  of 
Great  Britain]  In  the  last  war,  by  union  and  judicious  .concert  of 
measures,  we  w'ere  triumphant.  Can  this  be  the  case  in  a  future 
war,  if  we  be  disunited  from  our  sister  states]  What  would  have 
been  the  consequence,  if  in  the  late  war  we  had  deposed  on  our  arms 
and  depended  on  providence  alone]  Shall  we  ever  be  at  peace :  be¬ 
cause  we  are.  so  now]  Is  it  unnecessary  to  provide  against  future 
events]  His  objection  goes  to  prove  that  Virginia  can  stand  by  her¬ 
self.  The  advice  that  would  attempt  to  convince  me  of  so  perni¬ 
cious  an  error,  I  treat  with  disdain.  Our  negroes  are  numerous,  and 
are  daily  becoming  more  so.  When  I  reflect  on  their  comparative 
number,  and  comparative  condition,  I  am  the  more  persuaded  of  the 
great  fitness  of  becoming  more  formidable  than  ever. 

It  seems  that  republican  borderers  are  peaceable.  This  is  another 
lapse  in  history.  Did  he  never  know  that  a  number  of  men  were  as 
much  inspired  with  ambition  as  any  individual.  Had  he  consulted 
history,  he  would  have  known  that  the  most  destructive  .wars  have 


198 


debates. 


[Randolph*. 

been  carried  on,  with  the  most  implacable  hatred  between  neigh-* 
feouring  republics.  It  is  proved  by  his  favorite  Roman  history,  that 
republican  borderers  are  as  apt  to  have  rancour  in  their  hearts  as 
any.  The  institutions  of  Lycurgus  himself,  could  not  restrain  re¬ 
publican  borderers  from  hostility.  He  treats  the  idea  of  commer¬ 
cial  hostility  as  extravagant.  History  might  inform  him  of  its  real¬ 
ity.  Experience  might  give  him  some  instruction  cn  the  subject. 

Go  to  the  Potomac,  and  mark  what  you  see.  I  had  the  mortifica¬ 
tion  to  see  Vessels  within  a  very  little  distance  from  the  Virginian 
shore,  belonging  to  Maryland,  driven  from  our  ports  by  the  badness 
of  our  regulations.  I  take  the  liberty  of  a  freeman  in  exposiug  what 
appears  to  me  to  deserve  censure.  I  shall  take  that  liberty  in  rep" 
rehending  the  wicked  act  which  attainted  Josiah  Phillips;  because 
be  was  not  a  Socrates,  is  he  to  be  attainted  at  pleasure1?  Is  he  to  bo 
attainted  because  he  is  not  among  the  high  of  reputation?*  After  the 
use  the  gentleman  made  of  a  word  innocently  to  express  a  crowd,  I 
thought  he  would  be  careful  himself.  We  are  all  equal  in  this 
country.  I  hope  that  with  respectr  to  birth  there  is  no  superiority. 
It  gives  me  pleasure  to  reflect,  that  though  a  man  cannot  trace  up 
his  lineage,  yet  he  is  not  to  be  despised!  I  shall  always  possess 
these  sentiments  and  feelings.  I  shall  never  aspire  at  high  offices. 
IF  my  country  should  ever  think  my  services  worth  any  thing,  it 
shall  be  in  the  humble  capacity  of  a  representative  :  higher  than  this 
T  will  not  aspire. 

He  has  expatiated  on  the  turpitude  of  the  character  of  Josiah 
Phillips.  Has  this  any  thing  to  do  with  the  principle  on  which  ho 
was  attained?  We  all  agree  that  he  was  an  abandoned  man.  But 
if  you  can  prepare  a  bill  to  attaint  a  man,  and  pass  it  through  both 
houses  in  an  instant,  I  ask  you,  who  is  safe?  There  is  no  man,  on 
whom  a  cloud  may  not  hang  some  time  or  other,  if  a  demagogue 
should  think  proper  to  take  advantage  of  it  to  his  destruction.  Phil¬ 
lips  had  a  commission  in  his  pocket  at  that  time.  He  was,  there** 
fore,  only  a  prisoner  of  war.  This  precedent  may  destroy  the  best 
man  in  the  community ;  when  he  was  arbitrarily  attainted,  merely 
because  lie  was  not  a  Socrates. 

He  has  perverted  my  meaning  with  respect  to  our  government.  I 
spoke  of  the  confederation.  He  took  no  notice  of  this.  He  reason¬ 
ed  of  the  constitution  of  Virginia.  I  had  said  nothing  of  it  on  that 
occasion.  Requisitions,  however,  he  said,  were  safe  and  adviseable, 
because  they  give  time  for  deliberation.  Will  not  taxation  do  this? 
Will  not  congress,  when  laying  a  tax,  bestow  a  thought  upon  it? 
But  he  means  to  say,  that  the  state  itself  ought  to  say,  w  hether  she 
pleases  to  pay  or  not,  Congress,  by  the  confederation,  has  power  to 
make  any  requisitions.  The  states  are  constitutionally  bound  to  pay 


Randolph.]  VIRGINIA.  199 

them.  We  have  seen  their  happy  effects.  When  the  requisitions 
are  right,  and  duly  proportioned,  it  is  in  the  power  of  any  state  to 
refuse  to  comply  with  them. 

He  says  that  he  would  give  them  the  impost.  I  cannot  under¬ 
stand  him,  as  he  says  he  has  an  hereditary  hatred  to  custom  house 
officers.  Why  despise  them1?  Why  should  the  people  hate  them? 
I  am  afraid  he  has  accidently  discovered  the  principle,  that  will 
lead  him  to  make  greater  opposition  than  can  be  justified  by  any 
thing  in  the  constitution.  I  would  undertake  to  prove  the  fallacy 
of  every  observation  he  made  on  that  occasion  :  but  it  is  too  late 

aow  to  add  any  more.  At  another  opportunity  I  shall  give  a  full 
refutation  to  all  he  has  said. 

Tuesday ,  the  10 th  of  June ,  1888. 

[The  first  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.] 

Gov.  RANDOLPH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  restrained  yesterday* 
by  the  lateness  of  the  day,  from  making  those  observations  which  I 
intended  to  make  in  answer  to  the  honorable  gentleman  who  had 
gone  before  me,  I  shall  now  resume  that  subject.  I  hope  we  shall 
come  at  last  to  a  decision.  I  shall  not  forever  wander  from  the  point, 
nor  transgress  the  rules  of  this  house ;  but  after  making  answer  to 
him,  shall  go  on  in  regular  order. 

He  observed  that  the  only  question  was,  with  respect  to  previous 
and  subsequent  amendments.  Were  this  the  only  question,  sir,  I 
am  sure  this  inconsiderable  matter  would  not  long  retard  a  decision. 
I  conceive  the  preservation  of  the  union  to  be  a  question  of  great 
magnitude.  This  must  be  a  peculiar  object  of  my  attention,  unless 
I  depart  from  that  rule  which  has  regulated  my  conduct  since  the 
introduction  of  federal  measures.  Suppose,  contrary  to  my  expec¬ 
tation,  this  convention  should  propose  certain  amendments  previous 
to  its  ratification,  mild  and  pliant  as  those  states  may  be,  who  have 
received  it  unanimously,  flexible  as  those  may  be,  who  have  adopted 
it,  by  a  majority,  I  had  rather  argue  from  human  nature  that  they 
will  not  recede  from  their  resolutions  to  accommodate  our  caprice. 
Is  there  no  jealousy  existing  between  the  states?  They  discover  no 
superiority  in  any  one  state,  of  arrogating  to  itself  a  right  to  dictate 
what  ought  to  be  done.  They  would  not  see  the  reasons  of  such 
amendments,  for  some  amendments  in  themselves  are  really  danger¬ 
ous.  The  same  reasons  could  not  be  impressed  on  all  the  states. 
I  shall  mention  one  example :  I  shall  suppose,  for  instance,  that  we 
shall  propose  as  an  amendment,  that  the  president  shall  have  a  coun¬ 
cil.  I  conceive  a  council  to  be  injurious  to  the  executive.  The  coun  - 
sellors  will  either  impede  or  clog  the  president,  or  if  he  be  a  man  of 
dexterity,  they  will  be  governed  by  him.  They  will  also  impair 
his  responsibility.  Is  it  probable  that  all  the  other  states  would 
think  alike  on  the  subject,  or  agree  to  such  an  alteration?  As  there 


DEBATES. 


200 


[Randolph. 


is  a  mode  in  the  constitution  itself  to  procure  amendments,  not  by 
reference  to  the  people,  hut  by  the  interposition  of  the  state  legisla¬ 
ture,  will  the  people  of  Virginia  bind  themselves  not  to  enter  into 
the  union  till  amendments  shall  have  been  obtained?  I  refer  it  to 
any  gentleman  here,  whether  this  may  not  entirely  exclude  ns  from 
the  union. 

The  honorable  gentleman  then  told  us,  that  Maryland  held  out, 
and  that  there  can  be  no  danger  from  our  holding  out  of  the  union  ; 
that  she  refused  to  come  into  the  confederation  until  the  year  1781r 
when  she  was  pressed  by  the  then  congress.  Is  this  a  proper  compari¬ 
son?  The  fear  of  the  British  army  and  navy  kept  the  states  togeth¬ 
er.  This  fear  induced  that  state  to  come  into  the  union  then,  other¬ 
wise  the  union  would  have  been  destroyed.  We  are  also  told  that 
Vermont  held  out.  His  information  is  inaccurate.  Pardon  me  for 
saying  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  those  times.  The 
Tight  to  that  territory  was  long  in  dispute  between  New  York  and 
Connecticut.  The  inhabitants  took  that  opportunity  of  erecting*’ 
themselves  into  a  state.  They  pressed  congress  for  admission  into 
the  union.  Their  soliciations  werecontinually  opposed  till  the  year 
1781,  when  a  kind  of  assent  was  given.  Can  it  be  said  from  this, 
that  the  people  of  Vermont  held  out  against  the  confederation  of 
twelve  states?  Were  they  sufficiently  wealthy  and  numerous  to  do 
so?  Virginia  is  said  to  be  able  to  stand  by  herself.  From  her  situ¬ 
ation  she  has  cause  to  fear.  She  has  also  cause  to  fear  from  her 
inability  to  raise  an  army,  a  navy,  or  money.  I  contend  that  she  is 
act  able  to  stand  by  herself.  I  am  sure  that  every  man  who  comes 
from  the  exposed  parts  of  this  country  is  well  convinced  of  this  truth. 
As  these  have  been  enumerated,  it  would  be  useless  to  go  over  them 
again.  He  then  told  us,  that  an  error  in  government  never  can  be 
removed.  I  will  acknowledge  with  him,  that  there  are  governments 
in  Europe,  whereof  the  defects  have  a  long  time  been  unaltered, 
and  are  not  easily  changed. 

We  need  not  go  farther  than  the  war,  to  find  a  willing  relinquish¬ 
ment  of  power.  Look  at  the  confederation  :  you  will  find  there  such 
a  voluntary  relinquishment.  View  the  convention  at  Annapolis  :  the 
object  of  its  delegation  involved  in  its  nature  some  relinquishment 
of  power.  It  produced  this  effect — all  the  states,  except  Rhode  Is¬ 
land,  agreed  to  call  a  general  convention,  to  revise  the  confederation, 
and  invest  congress  with  more  power.  A  general  convention  ha* 
been  called — it  has  proposed  a  system  which  concedes  considerable 
powers  to  congress.  Eight  states  have  already  assented  to  this  con¬ 
cession.  After  this,  can  we  say,  that  men  will  not  voluntarily  relin¬ 
quish  power?  Contrast  this  country  with  Scotland,  blessed  with 
union.  The  circumstances  of  the  two  countries  are  not  disismilar. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


20  i 


View  Scotland— that  country  is  greatly  benefitted  by  union.  It  would 
not  be  now  in  its  present  flourishing  situation  without  the  auspices 
of  England.  This  observation  brings  us  to  the  necessity  of  union. 

Were  we  not  to  look  to  futurity,  have  we  nothing  to  fear  from  the 
present  state  of  Europe?  We  are  exposed  at  sea.  The  honorable 
gentleman  tells  us,  we  have  no  hostility  to  fear  from  that  quarter; 
that  our  ambassador  at  Paris  would  have  informed  us  if  there  were 
any  combustibles  preparing.  If  he  has  not  done  any  such  thing,  it  is 
no  conclusive  evidence  of  safety.  Nations  have  passions  like  men. 
It  is  the  disposition  of  nations  to  attack  where  there  is  a  demonstra¬ 
ble  weakness.  Aie  you  weak?  Go  to  history  ;  it  will  tell  you,  you 
will  be  insulted.  One  insult  will  produce  another,  till  at  last  it  pro¬ 
duces  a  partition.  So  when  they  tell  us  there  is  no  storm  gathering 
they  ought  to  support  their  allegations  by  some  probable  evidence. 
The  honorable  gentleman  then  told  us  that  armies  do  not  collect 
debts,  but  armies  make  reprisals.  If  the  debts  which  we  owe,  con¬ 
tinue  on  the  disgraceful  footing  they  have  been  on  hitherto,  without 
even  the  payment  of  interest,  we  may  well  expect  such  reprisals. 
The  seizure  of  our  vessels  in  foreign  ports  must  be  the  certain  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  continuance  of  such  a  disgraceful  conduct.  He  then 
informed  us  that  no  danger  was  to  be  apprehended  from  Spain — that 
she  trembles  for  Mexico  and  Peru.  That  nation,  Sir,  is  a  powerful 
nation,  and  has  immense  resources.  What  will  she  be  when  united 
with  France  and  other  nations  who  have  cause  of  complaint  against 
us?  Mr.  Chairman,  Maryland  seems  too  to  be  disregarded.  The  loss 
of  the  union  would  not  bring  her  arms  upon  our  heads — look  at  the 
Northern  Neck.  If  the  union  is  dissolved,  will  it  adhere  to  Virginia? 
Will  the  people  of  that  place  sacrifice  their  safety  for  us?  How  are 
we  to  retain  them?  By  force  of  arms?  Is  this  the  happy  way  he 
proposes  for  leaving  us  out  of  the  union. 

We  are  next  informed,  that  there  is  no  danger  from  the  borders  of 
Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  ;  and  that  my  observations  upon  the 
frontiers  of  England  and  Scotland,  are  inapplicable.  He  distinguish¬ 
es  republican  from  monarchial  borderers — and  ascribes  pacific  meek¬ 
ness  to  the  former,  and  barbarous  ferocity  to  the  latter.  There  is  as 
'  much  danger,  sir.  from  republican  borderers  as  from  any  other.  The 
danger  results  from  the  situation  of  borderers,  and  not  from  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  government  under  which  they  live.  History  will  shew 
tihat  as  much  barbarity  and  cruelty  have  been  committed  upon  one 
another  by  republican  borderers,  as  by  any  other.  We  are  border¬ 
ers  upon  three  states,  two  of  which  are  ratifying  states.  I  therefore 
repeat,  sir,  that  we  have  danger  to  apprehend  from  this  quarter. 

As  to  the  people’s  complaints  of  the  government,  the  gentleman 
must  either  have  misunderstood  me,  or  went  over  very  slightly  what 


DEBATES. 


202 


[Randolph. 


I  said  of  the  confederation.  He  spolre  of  the  constitution  ofVirginia,- 
concerning  which  I  said  nothing.  The  confederation,  sir,  on  which 
we  are  told  we  ought  to  trust  our  safety,  is  totally  void  of  coercive 
power  and  energy.  Of  this  the  people  of  America  have  been  long 
convinced;  and  this  conviction  has  been  sufficiently  manifested  to  the* 
world.  Of  this  I  spoke,  and  now  I  repeat,  that  if  we  trust  to  it,  we 
shall  be  defenceless.  The  general  government  ought  to  be  vested' 
with  powers  competent  to  our  safety,  or  else  the  necessary  conse¬ 
quence  must  be,  that  we  shall  be  defenceless. 

The  honorable  gentleman  tells  us,  that  if  the  project  at  Albany  for 
the  colonial  consolidation,  as  he  terms  it,  had  been  completed,  it 
would  have  destroyed  every  union  and  happiness.  What  has  that 
to  do  with  this  paper!  It  tells  us  what  the  present  situation  of  Ame¬ 
rica  is.  Can  any  man  say,  he  could  draw  a  better  picture  of  our  sit¬ 
uation  than  that  paper?  He  says,  that  by  the  completion  of  that  pro¬ 
ject  the  King  of  Great  Britain  might  have  bound  us  so  tight  togeth¬ 
er,  that  resistance  would  have  been  ineffectual  Does  it  not  tell  us, 
that  union  is  necessary?  Will  notour  united  strength  be  more  compe¬ 
tent  to  our  defence,  against  any  assault,  than  the  force  of  a  part?  If 
in  their  judgment  alone,  who  could  decide  on  it,  it  was  judged  suffi¬ 
cient  to  secure  their  happiness  and  prosperity,  why  say,  that  that 
project  would  have  destroyed  us?  But  the  honorable  gentleman 
again  recurs  to  his  beloved  requisitions,  on  which  he  advises  us  to 
trust  our  happiness.  Can  any  thing  be  more  imprudent  than,  to  put 
the  general  government  on  so  humiliating  and  disgraceful  a  footing? 
What  are  they  but  supplications  and  intreaties  to  the  slates  to  do 
their  duty?  Shall  we  rely  on  a  system  of  which  every  man  knows 
the  inefficacy?  One  cannot  conceive  any  thing  more  contemptible 
than  a  government  which  is  forced  to  make  humble  applications  to 
other  governments  for  the  means  of  its  common  support,  which  is 
driven  to  apply  for  a  little  money  to  carry  on  its  administration  a  few 
months.  After  the  total  incapacity  of  the  confederation  to  secure  our 
happiness  has  been  fully^xperienced,  what  will  be  the  consequence 
if  we  reject  this  constitution?  Shall  we  recur  to  separate  confedera¬ 
cies?  The  honorable  gentleman  acknowledges  them  to  be  evils 
which  ought  not  to  be  restored  to  but  on  the  last  necessity — they 
are  evils  of  the  first  magnitude. 

Permit  me  to  extract  out  of  the  confederation  of  Albany,  a  fact 
of  the  highest  authority,  because  drawn  from  human  nature;  which 
clearly  demonstrates  the  fatal  impolicy  of  separate  confederacies.— 
[Here  he  made  a  quotation  to  that  effect.]  If  there  is  a  gentleman 
here,  who  harbors  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  a  separate  confederacy,  I 
beg  him  to  consider  the  consequence.  Where  shall  we  find  refuge 
in  the  day  ot  calamity?  The  different  confederacies  will  be  mala 


VIRGINIA. 


203T 


Randolph.] 

id  power  and  commerce,  and  therefore  will  soon  be  implacable  ene¬ 
mies  of  one  another.  I  ask  if  there  be  any  objection  to  this  system* 
that  will  not  come  with  redoubled  energy  against  any  other  plan? 
See  the  defects  in  this  constitution,  and  examine  if  they  do  not  ap¬ 
pear  with  tenfold  force  in  separate  confederacies.  After  having  ac¬ 
knowledged  the  evil  tendency  of  separate  confederacies,  he  recurs 
to  this,  that  this  country  is  too  extensive  for  the  system.  If  there 
Be  an  executive  dependent  for  its  election  on  the  people,  a  judiciary 
which  will  administer  the  laws  with  justice,  no  extent  of  country 
will  be  too  great  for  a  republic. 

Where  is  there  a  precedent  to  prove  that  this  country  is  too  exten¬ 
sive  for  a  government  of  this  kind?  America  cannot  find  a  precedent 
to  prove  this.  Theoretic  writers  have  adopted  a  position,  that  ex¬ 
tensive  territories  will  not  admit  of  a  republican  government.  These 
positions  were  laid  down  before  the  science  of  government  was  as 
well  understood  as  it  is  now.  Where  would  America  look  for  a  pre¬ 
cedent  to  warrant  her  adoption  of  that  position.  If  you  go  to  Eu¬ 
rope,  before  arts  and  sciences  had  arrived  at  their  present  perfection, 
no  example  worthy  of  imitation  can  be  found.  The  history  of  En¬ 
gland,  from  the  reign  of  Henry  the  VHth  of  Spain,  since  that  of 
Charles  the  Vth  ;  and  of  France,  since  that  of  Francis  the  1st, 
prove,  that  they  have  greatly  improved  in  the  science  of  politics 
since  that  time.  Representation,  the  source  of  American  liberty, 
and  English  liberty  was  a  thing  not  understood  in  Its  full  extent  till 
very  lately. 

The  position  I  have  spoken  of  was  founded  upon  an  ignorance  of 
the  principles  of  representation.  Its  force  must  be  now  done  away, 
as  this  principle  is  so  well  understood.  If  laws  are  to  be  made  by 
the  people  themselves,  in  their  individual  capacities,  it  is  evident 
that  they  cannot  conveniently  assemble  together  for  this  purpose, 
but  in  a  very  limited  sphere,  but  if  the  business  of  legislation  bo 
transacted  by  representatives,  chosen  periodically  by  the  people,  it 
is  obvious  that  it  may  be  done  in  any  extent  of  country.  The  ex¬ 
perience  of  this  commonwealth,  and  of  the  United  States,  proves 
this  assertion. 

Mr.  Chairman,  l  am  astonished  that  the  rule  of  the  house  to  de¬ 
bate  regularly  has  not  been  observed  by  gentlemen.  Shall  we  nev¬ 
er  have  order?  I  must  transgress  that  rule  now,  not  because  I  think 
the  conduct  of  gentleman  deserves  imitation,  but  because  the  honor¬ 
able  gentleman  ought  to  be  answered.  In  that  list  of  facts  with 
which  he  would  touch  our  affections,  he  has  produced  a  name.  (Mr. 
Jefferson)  which  will  ever  be  remembered  with  gratitude  by  this 
commonwealth.  I  hope  that  his  life  will  be  continued,  to  add,  by 
bis  future  actions,  to  the  brilliancy  of  his  character.  ^  et,  I  trust 


DEBATES. 


294 


[Randolph* 


that  his  name  was  not  mentioned  to  influence  any  member  of  this 
house.  Notwithstanding  the  celebrity  of  his  character,  his  name 
cannot  be  used  as  authority  against  the  constitution.  I  know  not 
his  authority.  I  have  had  no  letter  from  him.  As  far  as  my  infor¬ 
mation  goes,  it  is  only  a  report  circulated  through  the  town,  that  he 
Wished  nine  states  to  adopt,  and  the  others  reject  it,  in  order  to  get 
amendments.  Which  is  the  ninth  state  to  introduce  the  government? 
That  illustrious  citizens  tells  you,  that  he  wishes  the  government  to 
be  adopted  by  nine  states,  to  prevent  a  schism  in  the  union.  This, 
Sir,  is  my  wish.  I  will  go  heart  and  hand  to  obtain  amendments, 
but  I  will  never  agree  to  the  dissolution  of  the  union.  But  unless 
a  ninth  state  will  accede,  this  must  inevitably  happen.  No  doubt 
he  wished  Virginia  to  adopt.  I  wish  not  to  be  bound  by  any  man’s 
opinion  ;  but  admitting  the  authority  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
has  produced  to  be  conclusive,  it  militates  against  himself.  Is  B 
right  to  adopt?  He  says,  no ;  because  there  is  a  president.  I  wish 
he  was  eligible  after  a  given  number  of  years. 

I  wish  also  some  other  changes  to  be  made  in  the  constitution. 
But  I  am  therefore  obliged  to  run  the  risk  of  losing  the  union,  by 
proposing  amendments  previously,  when  amendments  without  that 
risk  can  be  obtained  afterwards?  Am  I  to  indulge  capricious  opini¬ 
ons  so  far  as  to  lose  the  union?  The  friends  of  the  union  will  see 
how  far  we  carry  our  attachment  to  it,  and  will  therefore  concur  with 
our  amendments.  1  he  honorable  gentleman  has  told  us,  that  Hol¬ 
land  is  ruined  by  a  stadtholder  and  a  stadtholder’s  wife.  I  believe 
this  republic  is  much  indebted  to  that  execrated  stadtholder  for  her 
power  and  wealth.  Recur  to  the  history  of  Holland,  and  you  will 
find  that  country  never  could  have  resisted  Spain  had  it  not  been  for 
the  stadtholder.  At  those  periods  when  they  had  no  stadtholder, their 
government  was  weak  and  their  public  affairs  deranged.  Why  has 
this  been  mentioned?  Was  it  to  bias  our  minds  against  the  federal 
executive?  Are  we  to  have  no  executive  at  all,  or  are  we  to  have 
eight  or  ten?  An  executive  is  as  necessary  for  the  security  of  liber¬ 
ty  and  happiness,  as  the  two  other  branches  of  government.  Eve¬ 
ry  state  in  the  union  has  an  executive. 

Let  us  consider  whether  the  federal  executive  be  wisely  construc¬ 
ted.  This  is  a  point  in  which  the  constitution  of  every  state  differs 
widely  as  to  the  mode  of  electing  their  executives,  and  as  to  the 
time  of  continuing  them  in  office.  In  some  states  the  executive  is 
perpetually  eligible.  In  others  he  is  rendered  ineligible  after  a  gi- 
ven  period.  They  are  generally  elected  by  the  legislature.  It  can¬ 
not  be  objected  to  the  federal  executive,  that  the  power  is  executed 
by  one  man.  All  the  enlightened  part  of  mankind  agree  that  the 
superior  despatch,  secrecy,  and  energy  with  which  one  man  can  act. 


VIRGINIA. 


205> 


Randolph.] 


renders  it  more  politic  to  vest  the  power  of  executing  the  laws  to 
one  man,  than  in  any  number  of  men.  How  is  the  president  elec¬ 
ted?  By  the  people — on  the  same  day  throughout  the  United  States 
— by  those  whom  the  people  please.  There  can  be  no  concert  be¬ 
tween  the  electors.  The  votes  are  sent  sealed  to  congress.  What 
are  his  powers?  To  see  the  laws  executed.  Every  executive  in  A- 
merica  has  that  power.  He  is  also  to  command  the  array — this 
power  also  is  enjoyed  by  the  executives  of  the  different  states. — He 
can  handle  no  part  of  the  public  money  except  what  is  given  him  by 
law.  At  the  end  of  four  years  he  may  be  turned  outj>f  his  office. 
If  he  misbehaves  he  may  be  impeached,  and  in  this  case  he  will  nev¬ 
er  be  re-elected.  I  cannot  conceive  how  his  powers  can  be  called 
formidable.  Both  houses  are  a  check  upon  him.  He  can  do  no  im¬ 
portant  act  without  the  concurrence  ofthe  senate.  In  England,  the 
sword  and  purse  are  in  different  hands.  The  king  has  the  power  of 
the  sword — and  the  purse  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people  alone.  Take 
a  comparison  between  this  and  the  government  of  England. 

It  will  prove  in  favor  of  the  American  principle.  In  England  the 
king  declares  war.  In  America,  congress  must  be  consulted.  In 
England,  parliament  gives  money.  In  America,  congress  does  it. 
There  are  consequently  more  powers  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  and 
greater  checks  upon  the  executive  here,  than  in  England.  Let  him 
pardon  me,  when  I  say  he  is  mistaken  in  passing  an  eulogium  on 
the  English  government  to  the  prejudice  of  this  plan.  Those  checks 
which  he  says  are  to  be  found  in  the  English  Government,  are  als* 
to  be  found  here.  Our  government  is  founded  upon  real  checks. 
He  ought  to  shew  there  are  no  checks  in  it.  Is  this  the  case?  Who 
are  your  representatives?  They  are  chosen  by  the  people  for  two 
years.  Who  are  your  senators?  They  are  chosen  by  the  legisla¬ 
tures,  and  a  third  of  them  go  out  of  the  senate  at  the  end  of  every 
second  year.  They  may  also  be  impeached.  There  are  no  better 
ehecks  upon  earth.  Are  there  better  checks  in  the  government  of 
Virginia?  There  is  not  a  check  in  the  one  that  is  not  in  the  other. 
The  difference  consists  in  the  length  of  time,  and  in  the  nature  of 
the  objects.  Any  man  may  be  impeached  here — so  he  may  there* 
If  the  people  of  Virginia  can  remove  their  delegates  for  misbehavior, 
by  electing  other  men  at  the  end  of  the  year;  so  in  like  manner,  the 
federal  representatives  may  be  removed  at  the  end  of  two,  and  the 
senators  at  the  end  of  six  years. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  praised  the  Virginia  government. 
We  can  prove  that  the  federal  constitution  is  equally  excellent.  The 
legislature  of  Virginia  may  conceal  their  transactions  as  well  as  the 
general  government.  There  is  no  clause  in  the  constitution  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  to  oblige  its  legislature  to  publish  its  proceedings  at  any  period. 


906 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 

Theclausein  this  constitution  which  provides  for  a  periodical  publi¬ 
cation,  and  which  the  honorable  gentleman  reprobates  so  much,  ren¬ 
ders  the  federal  constitution  superior  to  that  of  Virginia  in  this  res¬ 
pect.  The  expression,  from  time  to  time,  renders  us  sufficiently  se¬ 
cure — it  will  compel  them  to  publish  their  proceedings  as  often  as  it 
can -conveniently  and  safely  be  done;  and  must  satisfy  every  mind, 
without  an  illiberal -perversion  of  its  meaning.  His  bright  ideas  are 
very  much  obscured,  by  torturing  the  explication  of  words.  His  in¬ 
terpretation  of elections  must  be  founded  on  a  misapprehension.  The 
constitution  says,  that  “  the  times,  places  and  manner  of  holding  elec¬ 
tions  for  senators  and  representatives,  shall  be  prescribed  in  each 
state  by  ihe  legislature  thereof ;  but -the  congress  may  at  anytime, 
by  law,  make  or  alter  such  regulation,  except  as  to  the  place  ofchu- 
sing  senators.”  It  says,  in  another  place,  “  that  the  electors  in  each 
state  shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most 
numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature.”  Who  would  have  con¬ 
ceived  it  possible  to  deduce  from  these  clauses,  that  the  power  of 
election  was  thrown  into  the  hands  of  the  r-ich!  As  the  electors  of 
the  federal  representatives  are  to  have  the  same  qualifications  with 
those  of  the  representative  of  this  state  legislature,  or -in  other  words, 
as  the  electors  of  the  one  are  -to  be  electois  of  the  other,  this  sugges¬ 
tion  is  unwarrantable,  unless  he  carries  his  supposition  farther,  and 
says,  that  Virginia  will  .agree  to  herown  suicide,  by  modifying  elec¬ 
tions  in  such  manner  as  to  throw  them  into  the  hands  of  the  rich. 
The  honorable  gentleman  has  not  given  us  a  fair  object  to  be  attack¬ 
ed,  he  has  not  given  us  any  thing  substantial  to  be  examined. 

It  is  also  objected, -that. the  trial  by  jury,  the  writ  ofhabeas  corpus 
and  the  liberty  of  the  press,  are  insecure.  But  I  contend  that  the  ha¬ 
beas  corpus  is  at  least  on  as  secure  and  good  a  footing  as  it  is  in 
England.  In  that  country  it  depends  on  the  will  of  the  legislature. 
That  privilege  is  secured  here  by  the  constitution,  and  is  only  to  be 
suspended  in  cases  of  extreme  emergency.  In  this  not  a  fair  footing! 
After  agreeingtnat  the  government  of  England  secures  liberty,  how- 
do  we  distrust  this  government!  W'h}7  distrust  ourselves!  The  lib¬ 
erty  of  the  press  is  supposed  to  be  in  danger.  If  this  were  the  case, 
it  would  produce  extreme  repugnancy  in  my  mind.  If  it  over  will  be 
suppressed  in  this  country,  the  liberty  of  the  people  will  not  be  far 
irom  being  sacrificed.  Where  is  the  danger  of  it!  He  says  that  every 
.power  is  given  to  the  general  government,  that  is  not  reserved  to  the 
states.  Pardon  me  if  I  say  the  reverse  of  the  proposition  is  true.  I 
defy  any  one  to  prove  the  contrary.  Every  power  not  given  it  by 
this -system,  is  left  with  the  states.  This  being  the  principle,  from 
what  part,  of  the  constitution  can  the  liberty  of  the  press  be  said  to  b# 
in  danger! 


VIRGINIA. 


207 


Randolph.] 

[Here1  his  excellency  read  the  eighth  section  of  the  first  article, 
containing  all  the  powers  given  to  congress.] 

Go  through  these  powers,  examine  every  one,  and  tell  me  if  the 
most  exalted  genius  can  prove  that  the  liberty  of  the  press  is  in  dan¬ 
ger.  The  trial  by  jury  is  supposed  to  be  in  danger  also.  It  is  secured 
in  criminal  cases — but  supposed  to  be  taken  away  in  civil  cases.  It 
is  not  relinquished  by  the  constitution — it  is  only  not  provided  for. 
Look  at  the  interest  of  congress  to  suppress  it.  Can  it  be  in  any 
manner  advantageous  for  them  to  suppress  it?  In  equitable  cases  it 
ought  not  prevail,  nor  with  respect  to  admiralty  causes ;  because  there 
will  be  an  undue  leaning  against  those  characters,  of  whose  business 
courts  of  admiralty  will  have  cognizance,  I  will  rest  myself  secure 
under  this  reflection,  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  most  suspicious  or 
malignant  mind,  to  shew  that  it  islhe  interest  of  congress  to  infringe 
on  this  trial  by  jury. 

Freedom  of  religion  is  said  to  be  in  danger.  I  will  candidly  say, 
I  once  thought  that  it  was,  and  felt  great  repugnance  to  the  constitu¬ 
tion  for  that,  reason.  I  am  willing  to  acknowledge  my  apprehensions 
removed — and  !  will  inform  you  by  what  process  of  reasoning  Ldid 
remove  them.  The  ^constitution  provides,  that  “  the  senators  und 
•representatives  before  mentioned,  and  the  members  of  the  several 
state  legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  states,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or 
affirmation,  to  support  this  constitution;  but  no  religious  test  shall 
ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under 
the  United  States.”  It  has  been  said,  that  if  the  exclusion  of  the 
religious  test  were  an  exception  from  the  general  power  of  congres* 
the  power  over  religion  would  remain.  I  inform  those  who  are  of  thin 
opinion,  that  no  power  is  given  expressly  to  congress  over  religion. 
The  senators  and  representatives,  members  of  the  state  legislatures, 
and  executive  and  judicial  officers,  are  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation, 
to  support  this  constitution.  This  only  binds  them  to  support  it  in  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  constitutionally  given  it.  The  exclusion  of 
religious  tests. is  an  exception  from  this  general  provision,  with  res¬ 
pect  to  oaths  or  affirmations.  Although  officers,  &c.  are  to  swear 
that  they  will  support  this  constitution,  yet  they  are  not  bound  to  sup¬ 
port  one  mode  of  worship,  or  to  adhere  to  one  particular  sect.  It 
puts  all  sects  on  the  same  footing.  A  man  of  abilities  and  character 
of  any  sect  whatever,  may  be  admitted  to  any  office  or  public -trus 
under  the  United  States.  I  am  a  friend  to  a  variety  of  sects  because 
they  keep  one  another  in  order.  How  many  different  sects  are  w® 
composed  of  thorought  the  United  States?  How  many  different  sects 
will  be  in  congress?  We  cannot  enumerate  the  sects  that  may  be  in 
‘Congress-  And  there  are  now  so  many  in  the  United  States,  that 


) 


208  DEBATES.  [Randolph. 

they  will  prevent  the  establishment  of  any  one  sect  in  prejudice,  to 
the  rest,  and  will  forever  oppose  all  attempts  to  infringe  religious 
liberty.  If  such  an  attempt  be  made,  will  not  the  alarm  be  sounded 
throughout  America?  If  congress  be  as  wicked  as  we  are  foretold 
they  will,  they  would  not  run  the  risk  of  exciting  the  resentment  of 
all,  or  most,  of  the  religious  sects  in  America. 

The  judiciary  is  drawn  up  in  terror — here  1  have  an  objection  of 
a  different  nature.  I  object  to  the  appellate  jurisdiction  as  the 
greatest  evil  in  it.  But  I  look  at  the  union — the  object  which  guides 
me.  When  I  look  at  the  Union,  objects  of  less  consideration  vanish, 
and  I  hope  that  the  inconvenience  will  be  redressed,  and  that  con¬ 
gress  will  prohibit  the  appeal  with  respect  to  matters  of  fact.  When 
it  respects  only  matters  of  law,  no  danger  can  possibly  aiise  from  it. 
Can  congress  have  any  interest  in  continuing  appeals  of  fact?  If 
Pennsylvania  has  an  interest  in  continuing  it,  will  not  Georgia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Virginia,  New  York,  and  the  east¬ 
ern  states,  have  an  interest  in  discontinuing  it?  What  advantage 
will  its  continuance  be  to  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  or  Delaware?  Ia 
there  not  unanimity  against  it  in  congress  almost?  Kentucky  will 
be  equally  opposed  to  it?  Thus,  sir,  all  these  will  be  opposed  to 
one  state.  If  congress  wish  to  aggrandize  themselves  by  oppressing 
the  people,  the  judiciary  must  first  be  corrupted — no  man  says  any 
thing  against  them — they  are  more  independent  than  in  Englaud. 

But  they  say,  that  the  adoption  of  this  system  will  occasion  an 
augmentation  of  taxes.  To  object  to  it  on  this  ground,  is  as  much 
to  say — no  Union — stand  by  yourselves!  An  increase  of  taxes  ia  a 
terror  that  no  friend  to  the  union  ought  to  be  alarmed  at.  The  im¬ 
post  must  produce  a  great  sum.  The  contrary  cannot  be  supposed. 
I  conceive  the  particular  expense  of  particular  states  will  be  dimin¬ 
ished,  and  that  diminution  will,  to  a  certain  extent,  support  the 
onion.  Either  disunion,  or  separate  confederacies,  will  enhance  the 
expence.  An  union  of  all  the  states  will  be,  even  on  economical 
principles,  more  to  the  interest  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  then  either 
separate  confederacies  or  disunion.  Had  the  states  complied  with 
the  obligations,  imposed  upon  them  by  the  confederation,  thb  at¬ 
tempt  would  never  have  been  made.  The  unequivocal  experience 
we  have  had  of  their  inefficacy,  renders  this  change  necessary.  If 
union  be  nececsary  for  our  safety,  we  ought  not  to  address  the  ava¬ 
rice  of  this  house.  I  am  confident  that  not  a  single  member  of  this 
committee  would  be  moved  by  such  unworthy  considerations.  We 
are  told  that  the  people  do  not  understand  this  government.  I  ain 
persuaded  that  they  do  not — -not  for  the  want  of  more  time  to  under¬ 
stand  it,  but  to  correct  the  misrepresentations  of  it.  When  I  medi* 
stated  an  opposition  to  previous  amendments,  I  marked  the  number 


Haxbolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


909 


«f  what  appeared  to  me  to  be  errors,  and  which  I  wish  to  be  subse¬ 
quently  removed.  But  its  real  errors  have  been  exaggerated-— it  has 
not  met  with  a  fair  decision.  It  must  be  candily  acknowledged, 
that  there  are  some  evils  in  it  which  ought  to  be  removed.  But  I 
am  confident  that  such  gross  misrepresentations  have  been  made  of 
it,  that  if  carried  before  any  intelligent  men,  they  would  wonder  at 
such  glaring  attempts  to  mislead,  or  at  such  absolute  misapprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  subject.  Though  it  be  not  perfect,  any  government  is 
better  than  the  risk  which  gentlemen  wish  us  to  run. 

Another  construction  he  gives,  is,  that  it  is  exclusively  in  the 
power  of  congress  to  arm  the  militia,  and  that  the  states  could  not 
do  it,  if  congress  thought  proper  to  neglect  it.  I  am  astonished  how 
(this  idea  could  enter  into  the  gentleman’s  mind,  whose  acuteness  no 
man  doubts.  How  can  this  be  fairly  deduced  from  the  following 
elausel  “To  provide  for  the  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining 
the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employ¬ 
ed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  states  respec¬ 
tively,  the  appointment  of  the  officers  and  the  authority  of  trsiinin^ 
the  militia,  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  congress,** 
He  complains  much  of  implication,  hut  in  this  case  he  has  mack 
use  of  ithimsrlf:  for  this  construction  of  his  clause  cannot  possi¬ 
bly  be  supported  without  it.  It  is  clear  and  self-evident  that  the 
pretended  danger  cannot  result  from  the  clause.  Should  congres|| 
neglect  to  arm  or  discipline  the  militia,  the  states  are  fully  possess*  * 
#f  the  power  of  doing  it;  for  they  are  restrained  from  it  by 
part  of  the  constitution. 

The  sweeping  clause,  as  it  is  called,  is  much  dreaded.  I  fitn4 
that  I  differ  from  several  gentlemen  on  this  point.  This  formidah||^ 
clause  does  not  in  the  least  increase  the  powers  of  congress.  It  is 
-only  inserted  for  greater  caution,  and  to  prevent  the  possibility  gjf 
encroaching  upon  the  powers  of  congress.  No  sophistry  will  I* 
permitted  to  be  used  to  explain  away  any  of  those  powers---nor  pan. 
they  possibly  assume  any  other  power,  but  what  is  contained  in  the 
constitution,  without  absolute  usurpation.  Another  security  is,  that 
if  they  attempt  such  an  usurpation,  the  influence  of  the  state  go¬ 
vernments,  will  nip  it  in  the  bud  of  hope.  I  know  this  government 
will  be  cautiously  watched.  The  smallest  assumption  of  power 
will  be  sounded  in  alarm  to  the  people,  and  followed  by  bold  and 
active  opposition.  I  hope  that  my  countrymen  will  keep  guard 
against  eveiy  arrogation  of  power.  I  shall  take  notice  of  what  the 
honorable  gentleman  said,  with  respect  to  the  power  to  provide  for 
the  general  welfare.  The  meaning  of  this  clause  has  been  perverted 
to  alarm  our  apprehensions.  The  whole  clause  has  not  been  read 
together.  It  enables  congress  “  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  durieSi  iaa- 


VOL-  3, 


14 


219  DEBATES;  [Monros* 

posts  and  excises ;  to  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  common 
defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States ;  but  all  duties, 
imposts  and  excises,  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States.” 
The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  this,-  is  that  no  more  duties,  tax¬ 
es,  imposts  and  excises  shall  be  laid,  than  are  sufficient  to  pay  the 
debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare  of 
the  United  States. 

If  you  mean  to  have  a  general  government  at  all,  ought  it  not  to 
be  empowered  to  raise  money  to  pay  the  debts,  and  advance  fhfi 
prosperity  of  the  United  States  in  the  manner  that  congress  shall 
think  most  eligible'?  What  is  the  consequence  of  the  contrary? 
You  give  it  power  by  one  hand,  and  take  it  away  from  it  by  the 
other.  If  it  be  defective  in  some  parts,  }Tet  we  ought  to  give  due 
credit  to  those  parts  which  are  acknowledged  to  be  good.  Does  not 
the  prohibition  of  paper  money  merit  our  approbation?  I  approve 
of  it  because  it  prohibits  tender  laws,  secures  the  widows  and  or¬ 
phans,  and  prevents  the  states  from  impairing  contracts.  I  admire 
that  part  which  forces  Virginia  to  pay  her  debts.  If  we  recur  to 
to  the  bills  of  rights,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  speaks  so 
much  of,  we  will  find  that  it  recommends  justice.  Had  not  this 
power  been  given,  my  affection  for  it  would  not  have  been  so  great. — 
When  it  obliges  us  to  tread  in  the  path  of  virtue — when  it  takes 
away  from  the  most  influential  man,  the  power  of  directing  our  pass¬ 
ions  to  his  own  emolument,  and  of  trampling  upon  justice,  I  hope  to 
be  excused  when  I  say,  that  were  it  more  objectionable  that  it  is,  I 
would  vote  for  the  union. 

Mr  MONROE. — Mr  Chairman,  I  cannot  avoid  expressing  the  great 
anxiety  which  I  feel  upon  the  present  occasion,  an  anxiety  that  pro¬ 
ceeds  not  only  from  an  high  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  subject,  but 
from  a  profound  respect  for  this  august  and  venerable  assembly. 
When  we  contemplate  the  fate  that  has  befallen  other  nations,  whe¬ 
ther  we  cast  our  eyes  back  into  the  remotest  ages  of  antiquity,  or 
derive  instruction  from  those  examples  which  modern  times  have 
presented  to  our  view,  and  observe  how  prone  all  human  institutions 
have  been  to  decay;  how  subject  the  best  formed  and  wisely  organised 
governments  have  been  to  lose  their  checks  and  totally  dissolve;  how 
difficult  it  has  been  for  mankind  in  all  ages  and  countries,  to  preserve 
their  dearest  rights  and  best  privileges,  impelled  as  it  were  by  an 
irresistible  fate  of  despotism:  if  we  look  forward  to  those  prospects 
that  sooner  or  later  await  our  country,  unless  we  shall  be  exempted 
from  the  fate  of  other  nations,  even  to  a  mind,  the  most  sanguine  and 
benevolent,  some  gloomy  apprehensions  must  necessarily  crowd 
upon  it.  This  consideration  is  sufficient  to  teach  us  the  limited  ca_ 
pacify  of  the  human  mind,  how  subject  the  wisest  men  have  been  to 


VIRGINIA. 


211 


Monroe. 3 

error.  For  my  own  part,  sir,  I  come  forward  here,  not  as  the  parti- 
zan  of  this  or  that  side  of  the  question  ;  to  commend  where  the  sub¬ 
ject  appears  to  me  to  deserve  commendation;  to  suggest  my  doubts 
where  I'have  any — to  hear  with  candor  the  explanation  of  others; 
and  in  the  ultimate  result,  to  act  shall  as  appear  for  the  best  advan- 
tage  of  our  c  cmmon  country. 

The  American  states  exhibit  at  present  a  new  and  interesting  spec¬ 
tacle  to  the  eyes  of mankind.  Modern  Europe,  for  more  than  twelve 
centuries  past,  has  presented  to  view  one  of  a  very  different  kind. 
In  all  the  nations  of  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  there  hatlTheen  a  con¬ 
stant  effort  on  the  part  of  the  people,  to  extricate  themselves  from  the 
oppression  of  their  rollers;  but  with  us  the  object  is  of  a  very  different 
nature — to  establish  the  dominion  of  law  over  licentiousness — to  in¬ 
crease  the  powers  of  the  national  government  to  such  exteat,  and  or¬ 
ganize  it  in  such  manner,  as  to  enable  it  to  discharge  its  duties  and 
manage  the  affairs  ofthe  states  to  the  best  advantage.  There  are  two 
circumstances  remarkable  in  our  colonial  settlement;  1st,  the  exclu¬ 
sive  monopoly  of  our  trade.  2d,  That  it  was  settled  by  the  commons 
of  England  only.  The  revolution,  in  having  emancipated  us  from 
the  shackles  of  Great  Britain,  has  put  the  entire  government  in  the 
hands  of  one  order  of  people  only — freemen;  not  of  nobles  and  free¬ 
men.  This  is  a  peculiar  trait  in  the  character  of  this  revolution. 
That  this  sacred  deposit  may  be  always  retained  there,  is  my  most 
>earnest  wish  and  fervent  prayer.  That  union  is  the  first  object  for 
the  security  of  our  political  happiness,  in.  the  hands  of  gracious  prov¬ 
idence,’ is  well  understood  and  universally  admitted  through  all  the 
United  States.  From  New-Hampshire  to  Georgia,  (Rhode-Island 
excepted)  the  people  have  uniformily  manifested  a  strong  attachment 
to  the  union.  This  attachment  has  resulted  from  a  persuasion  of  its 
utility  and  necessity.  In  short,  this  is  a  point  so  well  known,  that 
it  is  needless  to  trespass  on  your  patience  any  longer  about  it.  A 
recurrence  has  been  had  to  history.  Ancient  and  modern  leagues 
have,  been  mentioned  to  make  impressions.  Will  they  admit  of  any 
analogy  with  our  situation?  The  same  principles  will  produce  the 
same  effects.  Permit  me  to  take  a  review  of  those  leagues  which  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  mentioned,  which  are,  1st.  the  AmphyctL 
onic  council — 2d.  the  Achaean  league — 3d.  the  Germanic  system — 4th 
Swiss  cantons — 5th.  United  Netherlands — and  6th.  tjfre  New-Eng- 
Iand  confederacy.  .Before  I  develope  the  principles  of  these  leagues, 
permit  me  to  speak  of. what  must  influence  the  happiness  and  dura¬ 
tion  of  leagues. — These  principally  depe.nd  on  the  following  circum¬ 
stances:  1st.  the  happy  construction  of  the  government  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  union — 2d.  the  security  from. foreign  danger.  For  instance, 
^monarchies  united  would  separate  sooi);  aristocracies  would  preserve 


DEBATES. 


319 


[NfojfRoa,- 


their  union  longer;  but  democracies, unless  separated  by  some  extra-¬ 
ordinary  circumstance,  would  last  forever.  The  causes  of  half  the 
wars  that  have  thinned  the  ranks  of  mankind,  and  depopulated  nati¬ 
ons,  are  caprice,  folly,  and  ambition:  these  belong  to  the  higher 
orders  of  governments,  where  the  passions  of  one,  or  of  a  few  indiv¬ 
iduals,  direct  the  fate  of  the  rest  of  the  community.  But  it  is  other¬ 
wise  with  democracies,  where  there  is  an  equality  among  the  citi¬ 
zens — and  a  foreign  and  powerful  enemy,  especially  a  monarch,  may 
crush  weaker  neighbors.  Let  us  see  how  far  these  positions  are 
supported  by  the  history  of  these  leagues,  and  how  far  they  apply  to 
us.  The  Amphyctionic  council  consisted  of  three  members,  Sparta, 
Thebes,  and  Athens.  What  was  the  construction  of  these  stateeT 
Sparta  was  a  monarchy  more  analagous  to  the  constitution  of  Eng- 
land,  than  any  1  have  heard  of  in  modern  times.  Thebes  was  a 
democracy,  but  on  different  principles  from  modern  democracies. 
Representation  was  not  known  then.  This  is  the  acquirement  of 
modern  times.  Athens  like  Thebes  wa3  generally  democratic,  but 
sometimes  changed.  In  these  two  states  the  people  transacted 
theif  business  in  person,  consequently  they  could  not  be  of  any  great 
extent.  There  was  a  perpetual  variance  between  the  members  of  this 
confederacy,  and  its  ultimate  dissolution  was  attributed  to  this  defect* 
The  weakest  were  obliged  to  call  for  foreign  aid,  and  this  precipi¬ 
tated  the  min  of  this  confederacy.  The  Achaean  league  had  more  an¬ 
alogy  to  ours,  and  gives  me  great  hopes  that  the  apprehensions  of 
gentlemen  with  respect  to  our  confederacy  are  groundless.  They 
were  all  democratic  and  firmly  united.  What  was  the  effect!  The 
most  perfect  harmony  and  friendship  subsisted  between  them,  and 
they  were  very  active  in  guarding  their  liberties.  The  history  of 
that  confederacy  does  not  present  us  with  those  coufiisions  and  inter¬ 
nal  convulsions,whlch  gentlemen  ascribe  to  all  governments  of  a  con¬ 
federate  kind.  The  most  respectable  historians  prove  this  confeder¬ 
acy  to  have  been  exempt  from  those  defects. 

[Here  Mr  Monroe  read  several  passages  in  Polybius,  tending  to  el** 
eidate  andprove  the  excellent  structure  of  theAchsan  league, and  the 
consequent  happy  effects  of  this  excellency.] 

He  then  continued — This  league  was  founded  on  democratiea!  prio* 
ciples,  and  from  the  wisdom  of  its  structure  continued  a  far  greater 
length  of  time  than  any  other.  Its  members,  like  our  states,  by  oar 
confederation,  retained  their  individual  sovereignty,  and  enjoyed  s 
perfect  equality.  What  destroyed  it?  Not  internal  dissentione. 
They  were  surrounded  by  great  and  powerful  nations— the  Lacede¬ 
monians,  Macedonians,  and  iEtolians.  The  jEtolians  and  La  cede 
■womuw  malting  war  on  them,  they  solicited  the  assistance  of  Mae* 


Monroe,"] 


VIRGINIA. 


213 


’©don,  who  no  sooner  granted  it  than  she  became  their  oppressor.  To 
ffree  themselves  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Macedonians,  they  prayed 
'Suceour  from  the  Romans,  who  after  relieving  them  from  their  op¬ 
pressors,  soon  totally  enslaved  them, 

The  Germanic  body  is  a  league  of  independent  principalities*  It 
has  no  analogy  to  our  system.  It  is  very  injudiciously  organized. 
Its  members  are  kept  together  by  the  fear  of  danger  from  one  anoth¬ 
er,  and  from  foreign  powers,  and  by  the  influence  of  the  emperor. 

The  Swiss  cantons  have  been  instanced  also,  as  a  proof  of  the 
natural  imbecility  of  federal  governments.  Their  league  has  sus¬ 
tained  a  variety  of  changes,  and  notwithstanding  the  many  causes 
that  tend  to  disunite  them,  they  still  stand  firm.  We  have  not  the 
same  causes  of  disunion  or  internal  variance  that  they  have.  The 
individual  cantons  composing  the  league,  are  chiefly  aristocratic.-*- 
What  an  opportunity  does  this  offer  to  foreign  powers  to  disturb  them 
rby  bribing  and  corrupting  their  aristocrats'?  .  It  ia  well  known  that 
their  services  have  been  frequently  purchased  by  foreign  nations. — 
Their  difference  of  religion  has  been  a  source  of  divisions  and  ani¬ 
mosity  between  them,  and  tended  to  disunite  them.  This  tendency 
has  been  considerably  increased  by  the  interference  of  foreign  nati¬ 
ons,  the  contiguity  of  their  position  to  those  nations  rendering  such 
interference  easy.  They  have  been  kept  together  by  the  fear  of  those 
nations,  and  the  nature  of  their  association;  the  leading  features  of 
which  are  a  principle  of  equality  between  the  cantons,  and  the  reten¬ 
tion  of  individual  sovereignty.  The  same  reasoning  applies  nearly 
to  the  United  Netherlands.  The  other  confederacy  which  has  been 
mentioned,  has  no  kind  of  analogy  to  our  situation. 

From  a  review  of  these  leagues,  we  find  the  causes  of  the  misfor¬ 
tunes  of  those  which  have  been  dissolved,  to  have  been  a  dissimilar¬ 
ity  of  structure  in  the  individual  members,  the  facility  of  foreign  in¬ 
terference,  and  -recurrence  to  foreign  aid.  After  this  review  of  those 
•  leagues,  if  we  consider  our  comparative  situation,  we  shall  find  that 
-nothing  can  be  adduced  from  any  of  them,  to  warrant  a  departure 
from  a  confederacy  to  a  consolidation,  on  the  principle  of  inefficacy 
in  the  former  to  secure  our  happiness.  The  causes  which  with  other 
nations  rendered  leagues  ineffectual  and  inadequate  to  the  security 
and  happiness  of  the  people  do  not  exist  here.  What  is  the  form  of 
our  state  governments?  They  are  all  similar  in  their  structure — 
perfectly  democratic.  The  freedom  of  mankind  has  found  an  asylum 
here,  which  it-could  -find  no  where  else.  'Freedom  of  conscience  is 
•enjoyed  here  in  the  fullest  degree.  Our  states  are  not  disturbed  by 
a  contrariety  of  religious  opinions  and  other  causes  of  quarrels  which 
•other  nations  have.  They  have  no  causes  of  internal  variance.-^ 
'Causes  of  war  between  the  states  have  been  represented  in  all  those 


DEBATES. 


214 


[Monroe.- 


terrors,  which  splendid  genius  and  brilliant  imagination  can  so  well 
depict.  But,  sir,  I  conceive  they  are  imaginary— mere  creatures  of  fan¬ 
cy.  I  will  admit  that  there  was  a  contrariety  of  sentiments;  a  con¬ 
test  in  which  1  was  a  witness,  in  some  respects,  a  contest  res¬ 
pecting  the  western  unsettled  lands.  Every  state  having  a 
charter  for  the  lands  within  its  colonial  limits,  had  its  claims  to  such 
lands  confirmed  by  the  war.  The  other  states  contended  that  those 
lands  belonged  not  to  a  part  of  the  states,  but  to  all :  that  it  was 
highly  reasonable  and  equitable,  that  all  should  participate  in  what 
had  been  acquired  by  the  efforts  of  all.  The  progress  of  this  dispute 
gave1  uneasiness  to  the  true  friends  of  America:  but  territorial 
claims  may  now  be  said  to  be  adjusted.  Have  not  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  and  other  states,  ceded  their  claims  to  congress?  The  dis¬ 
putes  between  Virginia  and  Maryland  are  also  settled  ;  nor  is  there 
an  existing  controversy  between  any  of  the  states  at  present.  Thus, 
sir,  this  great  source  of  public  calamity  has  been  terminated  with¬ 
out  the  adoption  of  this  government. 

Have  we  any  danger  to  fear  from  the  European  countries?  Per¬ 
mit  me  to  consider  our  relative  situation  with  regard  to  them,  and  to 
answer  what  has  been  suggested  on  the  subject.  Our  situation  is 
relatively  the  same  to  all  foreign  powers.  View  the  distance  be¬ 
tween  us  and  them — the  wide  Atlantic — an  ocean  3000  miles  across, . 
lies  between  us.  If  there  be  any  danger  to  these  states,  to  be  ap¬ 
prehended  from  any  of  those  countries,  it  must  be  Great  Britain 
and  Spain, whose  colonies  are  contiguous  to  our  country.  Has  there 
been  any  thing  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  since  the  peace,  that 
indicated  a  hostile  intention  towards  us?  Was  there  a  complaint  of 
a  violation  of  treaty  ?  She  committed  the  first  breach.  Virginia 
instructed  her  delegation  to  demand  a  reparation  for  the  negroes 
which  had  been  carried  away  contrary  to  treaty.  Being  in  congress, 
I  know  the  facts.  The  other  states  were  willing  to  get  some  com¬ 
pensation  for  their  losses  as  well  as  Virginia.  New  York  wished 
to  get  possession  of  the  western  posts  situated  within  her  territory. 
We  wished  to  establish  an  amicable  correspondence  with  that  coun¬ 
try,  and  to  adjust  all  differences.  The  United  States  sent  an  ambas¬ 
sador  for  this  purpose.  The  answer  sent  was,  that  a  compliance 
with  the  treaty  on  our  part  must  precede  it  on  theirs.  These  tran¬ 
sactions  are  well  known  in  every  state,  and  need  hardly  be  mention¬ 
ed.  Certain  it  is,  that  Great  Britain  is  desirous  of  peace,  and  that 
it  is  her  true  interest  to  be  in  friendship  with  us  ;  it  is  also  so  with 
Spain.  Another  circumstance  which  has  been  dwelt  upon,  is,  the 
necessity  of  the  protection  of  commerce.  What  does  our  commerce 
require?  Does  it  want  extension  and  protection?  Will  treaties 
answer  these-  ends?  Treaties,  sir,  will  not  extend  your  commerce.. 


VIRGINIA. 


215 


MoifftOE.] 

Our  object  is  the  regulation  of  commerce,  and  not  treaties.  Our 
treaties  with  Holland,  Prussia,  and  other  powers,  are  of  no  conse¬ 
quence.  It  is  not  to  the  advantage  of  the  United  States,  to  make 
any  compact  with  any  nation  with  respect  to  trade.  Our  trade  is 
engrossed  by  a  country  with  which  we  have  no  commercial  treaty. 
That  country  is  Great  Britain.  That  monopoly  is  the  result  of  the 
want  of  a  judicious  regulation  on  our  part.  It  is  as  valuable  and 
advantageous  to  them,  on  its  present  footing,  nay  more  so,  than  it 
could  be  by  any  treaty.  It  is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to 
invite  all  nations  to  trade  with  them.  To  open  their  ports  to  all, 
and  grant  no  exclusive  privilege  to  any,  in  preference  to  others.  I 
apprehend  no  treaty  that  could  be  made,  can  be  of  any  advantage  to 
us.  If  those  nations  opened  any  of  their  ports  to  us  in  the  East  or 
West  Indies,  it  would  be  of  advantage  to  us  ;  but  there  is  no  proba¬ 
bility  of  this.  France  and  Holland  have  been  said  to  be  threatening 
for  the  payment  of  the  debts  due  to  them.  I  understood  that  Hol¬ 
land  has  added  to  her  favors  to  us,  by  lending  us  other  sums  lately. 
This  is  a  proof  that  she  has  no  hostile  intent  against  us,  and  that 
she  is  willing  to  indulge  us,  France  has  made  no  pressing  demand. 
Our  country  has  received  from  that  kingdom  the  highest  proof  of  favors 
which  a  magnanimous  power  can  shew.  Nor  are  there  any  grounds 
to  suspect  a  diminution  of  its  friendship.  Having  examined  the  a- 
nalogy  between  the  ancient  leagues  and  our  confederacy,  and  shewn 
that  we  have  no  danger  to  apprehend  fiom  Europe,  I  conclude,  that 
we  are  in  no  danger  of  immediate  disunion,  but  that  we  may  calmly 
and  dispassionately  examine  the  defects  of  our  government,  and 
apply  such  remedies  as  we  shall  find  necessary. 

I  proceed  now  to  the  examination  of  the  confederation,  and  to  tak© 
a  comparative  view  of  this  constitution.  In  examining  either — a 
division  into  two  heads  is  proper,  viz  :  1st,  the  form  ;  and  2d,  the 
powers  of  the  government.  I  consider  the  existing  system  defec¬ 
tive  in  both  respects.  Is  the  confederation  a  band  of  union  suffici¬ 
ently  strong  to  bind  the  states  together!  Is  it  possessed  of  sufficient 
power  to  enable  it  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  union!  Is  it  well  or¬ 
ganized,  safe  and  proper!  I  confess,  that  in  all  these  instances,  I  con¬ 
sider  it  as  defective— I  consider  it  to  be  void  of  energy,  and  badly 
organized. 

What  are  the  powTers  which  the  federal  government  ought  to  have! 
I  will  draw  the  line  between  the  powers  necessary  to  be  given  to 
the  federal,  and  those  which  ought  to  be  left  to  the  state  govern¬ 
ments.  To  the  former  1  would  give  control  over  the  national  affairs: 
to  the  latter  I  would  leave  the  care  of  local  interests.  Neither  the 
confederation,  nor  this  constitution,  answers  this  discrimination. 
To  make  the  first  a  proper  federal  government,  I  would  add  to  it  on* 


DEBATES. 


$16 


great  power — I  would  give  it  an  absolute  control  over  commerce* 
To  render  the  system  under  consideration  safe  and  proper,  I  wosles 
take  from  it  one  power  only— I  mean  that  of  direct  taxation.  I  con¬ 
ceive  its  other  powers  are  sufficient  without  this.  My  objections 
this  power,  are  that  I  conceive  it  not  necessary,  impracticable  under 
a  democracy,  if  exercised,  as  tending  to  anarchy,  or  the  subversion 
of  liberty,  and  probably  the  latter*  In  the  first  place,  it  is  unneces¬ 
sary,  because  exigencies  will  not  require  it.  The  demands  and  ne¬ 
cessities  of  government  are  now  greater  than  they  will  be  hereafter* 
because  of  the  expenses  of  the  war  in  which  we  were  engaged* 
which  cost  us  the  blood  of  our  best  citizens,  and  which  ended 
gloriously* 

There  is  no  danger  of  war,  as  I  have  already  said.  Our  necessi¬ 
ties  will  therefore  in  a  short  time  be  greatly  diminished.  What  are 
the  resources  of  the  United  States?  How  are  requisitions  to  be  com¬ 
plied  with?  I  know  the  government  ought  to  be  so  organized,  aa  to 
be  competent  to  discharge  its  engagements  and  secure  the  public 
happiness.  To  enable  it  to  do  these  things,  I  would  give  it  the  pow¬ 
er  of  laying  an  impost,  which  is  amply  sufficient  with  its  other 
means.  The  impost,  at  an  early  period,  was  calculated  at  nearly  a 
million  of  dollars.  If  this  calculation  was  well  founded — if  it  wa* 
so  much  at  five  per  centum,  what  will  it  not  amount  to,  when  the 
absolute  control  of  commerce  will  be  in  the  hands  of  congress?  May 
we  not  suppose  that  when  the  general  government  will  lay  what  du¬ 
ties  it  may  think  proper,  that  the  amount  will  be  very  considerable? 
There  are  other  resources.  rlhe  back  lands  have  already  been  look¬ 
ed  upon  as  a  very  important  resource.  When  we  view  the  western 
extensive  territory,  and  contemplate  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  the  no¬ 
ble  rivers  which  penetrate  it,  and  the  excellent  navigation  which 
may  be  had  there,  may  we  not  depend  on  this  as  a  very  substantial 
resource? 

In  the  third  place,  we  have  the  resource  of  loans.  This  is  a  re¬ 
source  which  is  necessary  and  proper,  and  has  been  recurred  to  by 
all  nations.  The  credit  of  our  other  resources  will  enable  us  to  pro¬ 
cure,  by  loans,  any  sums  we  may  want.  We  have  also  in  the  fourth 
place,  requisitions,  which  are  so  much  despised.  These,  sir,  have 
been  often  productive.  As  the  demands  on  the  states  will  be  but 
for  trivial  sums,  after  congress  shall  be  possessed  of  its  other  great 
.resources,  is  it  to  be  presumed,  that  its  application  will  be  despised? 
If  the  government  be  well  administered,  or  possess  any  part  of  the 
confidence  of  the  people,  is  it  presumed,  that  requisitions,  for  trivial 
gums,  will  be  refused?  I  conclude,  Sir,  that  they  will  be  readily 
toomplied  with ;  and  that  they,  with  the  imposts,  back  lands,  and 
loans,  will  be  abundantly  sufficient  for  all  the  exigencies  of  the  union. 


VIRGINIA. 


Monro*.] 


In  the  next  p.ace,  it  appears  to  roe,  that  the  exercise  of  the  power 
of  direct  taxation,  is  impracticable  in  this  country  under  a  demo¬ 
cracy. 

Consider  the  territory  lying  between  the  Atlantic  ocean  and  thu 
Mississippi.  Its  extent  far  exceeds  that  of  the  German  empire.  It 
is  larger  than  any  territory  that  ever  was  under  any  one  free  govern* 
ment.  It  is  too  extensive  to  be  governed,  but  by  a  despotic  mon¬ 
archy.  Taxes  cannot  be  laid  justly  and  equally  in  such  a  territory. 
What  are  the  objects  of  direct  taxation?  Will  the  taxes  bp  laid  on 
land?  One  gentleman  has  said  that  the  United  States  would  select 
out  a  particular  object,  or  objects,  and  leave  the  rest  to  the  states- 
Suppose  land  to  be  the  object  selected  by  congress :  examine  its 
consequences.  The  land-holder  alone  would  suffer  by  such  a  selec¬ 
tion.  A  very  considerable  part  of  the  community  would  escape. 
Those  who  pursue  commerce  and  arts  would  escape.  It  could  not 
possibly  fee  estimated  equally.  Will  the  taxes  be  laid  on  polls  on¬ 
ly?  Would  not  the  land-holder  escape  in  that  case?  How  then  will 
it  fee  laid?  On  all  property?  Consider  the  consequences.  Is  it 
possible  to  make  a  law  that  shall  operate  alike  in  all  the  states?  Is 
it  possible  that  there  should  be  sufficient  intelligence  for  the  men  of 
Georgia,  to  know  the  situation  of  the  men  of  New  Hampshire?  Is 
there  a  precise  similitude  of  situation  in  each  state?  Compare  ths 
situation  of  the  citizens  in  different  states. 

Are  there  not  a  thousand  circumstances  shewing  clearly,  that 
there  can  be  no  law,  that  can  be  uniform  in  its  operation  throughout 
the  United  States?  Another  gentleman  said,  that  information  would 
be  had  from  the  state  laws.  Is  not  this  reversing  the  principles  of 
good  policy?  Can  this  substitution  of  one  body  to  thirteen  assem¬ 
blies,  in  a  matter  that  requires  the  most  minute  and  extensive  local 
information,  be  politic  or  just?  They  cannot  know  what  taxes  can 
be  least  oppressive  to  the  people.  The  tax  that  may  be  convenient 
in  one  state,  may  be  oppressive  in  another.  If  they  vary  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  taxation  in  different  states,  the  operation  must  be  unequal 
and  unjust.  If  congress  should  fix  the  tax  on  some  mischievous  ob¬ 
jects,  what  will  be  the  tendency?  It  is  to  be  presumed,  that  all  go¬ 
vernments  will,  some  time  or  other,  exercise  their  powers,  or  else, 
why  should  they  possess  them?  Enquire  into  the  badness  of  thi» 
government.  What  is  the  extent  of  the  power  of  laying  and  col¬ 
lecting  direct  taxes?  Does  it  not  give  to  the  United  States  all  the 
resources  of  the  individual  states?  Does  it  not  give  an  absolute  con¬ 
trol  over  the  resources  of  all  the  states?  If  you  give  the  resources 
of  the  several  states  to  the  general  government,  in  what  situation 
are  the  states  left?  I  therefore  think  the  general  government  will 
preponderate. 


[Monnoe. 


m  DEBATES.. 

Besides  its  possession  of  all  the  resources  of  the  country,  there 
are  other  circumstances  that  will  enable  it  to  triumph  in  the  conflict 
with  the  states.  Gentlemen  of  influence  and  character,  men  of  dis-^ 
tinguished  talents,  of  eminent  virtue,  and  great  endowments,  will 
compose  the  general  government.  In  what  a  situation  will  the  dif¬ 
ferent  states  Be,  when  all  the  talents  and  abilities  of  the  country  will 
be  against  them? 

Another  circumstance  will  operate  in  its  favor,  in  case  of  a  con¬ 
test.  The  oath  that  is  to  be  taken  to  support  it,  will  aid  it  most 
powerfully.  The  influence  which  the  sanction  of  oaths  has  on  men 
is  irresistable.  The  religious  authority  of  divine  revelation,  will  be 
quoted  to  prove  the  propriety  of  adhering  to  it,  and  will  have  great 
influence  in  disposing  men’s  minds  to  maintain  it. 

It  will  also  be  strongly  supported  by  the  last  clause  in  the  eighth 
section  of  the  first  article,  which  vests  it  with  the  power  of  making 
all  laws  necessary  to  carry  its  powers  into  effect.  The  correspon¬ 
dent  judicial  powers  will  be  an  additional  aid,.  There  is  yet  another 
circumstance,  which  will  throw  the  balance  in  the  scale  of  the  gene¬ 
ral  government. — A  disposition  in  its  favor,  has  shewn  itself  in  all 
parts  of  the  continent  and  will  certainly  become  more  and  more  pre¬ 
dominant.  Is  it  not  to  be  presumed,  that  if  a  contest  between  the 
state  legislatures  and  the  general  government  should  arise,  the  latter 
would  preponderate?  The  confederation  has  been  deservedly  rep¬ 
robated,  for  its  inadequacy  to  promote  the  public  welfare.  But  this 
change  is,  in  my  opinion,  very  dangerous. — It  contemplates  objects 
with  which  a  federal  government  ought  never  to  interfere.  The  con¬ 
current  interfering  power,  of  laying  taxes  on  the  people,  will  occa¬ 
sion  a  perpetual  conflict  between  the  general  and  individual  govern¬ 
ments  ;  which,  for  the  reasons  I  have  already  mentioned,  must  ter¬ 
minate  to  the  disadvantage,  if  not  in  the  annihilation  of  the  latter. 
Can  it  be  presumed,  that  the  people  of  America  can  patiently  bear 
such  a  double  oppression?  Is  it  not  to  be  presumed,  that  they  will  en¬ 
deavor  to  get  rid  of  one  of  the  oppressors?  I  fear,  sir,  that  it  will  ulti¬ 
mately  end  in  the  establishment  of  a  monarch ial  government.  The 
people,  in  order  to  be  delivered  from  one  species  of  tyranny,  may 
submit  to  another.  I  am  strongly  impressed  with  the  necessity  of 
having  a  firm’national  government];  but  I  am|decidedly  against  giving 
it  the  power  of  direct  taxation  ;  because  I  think  it  endangers  our  liber¬ 
ties.  My  attachment  to  the  union  and  an  energetic  government,  is 
such,  that  I  would  consent  to  give  the  general  government  every 
power  contained  in  that  plan,  except  that  of  taxation. 

As  it  will  operate  on  all  states  and  individuals,  powers  given  it 
generally  should  be  qualified.  It  may  be  attributed  to  the  prejudice 
of  my  education,  but  I  am  a  decided  and  warm  friend  to  a  billot 


Monroe.  J  VIRGINIA.  Sl$ 

rights— -the  polar  star,  and  great  support  of  American  liberty  ;.and  I 
am  clearly  of  opinion,  that  the  general  powers  conceded  by  that  plan 

such  as  the  impost,  &c.  should  be  guarded  and  checked  by  a  bill  of 
rights. 

Permit  me  to  examine  the  reasoning  that  admits,  that  all  powers 
not  given  up  are  reserved.  Apply  this.  If  you  give  [to  the  United 
States  the  power  of  direct  taxation — in  making  all  laws  necessary  to 
give  it  operation  (which  is  a  power  given  by  the  last  clause,  in  the 
eighth  section,  of  the  first  article)  suppose  they  should  be  of  opinion 
that  the  right  of  the  trial  by  jury  was  not  one  of  the  requisitesto  carry 
it  into  effect  ;  there  is  no  check  on  this  constitution  to  prevent  the 
formal  abolition  of  it.  There  is  a  general  power  given  to  them,  to 
make  all  laws  that  will  enable  them  to  carry  tlieir  powers  into  effect. 
There  are  no  limits  pointed  out.  They  are  not  restrained  or  con¬ 
trolled  from  making  any  law,  however  oppressive  in  its  operation, 
which  they  may  think  necessary  to  carry  their  powers  into  effect. 
By  this  general  unqualified  power,  they  may  infringe  not  on  the 
trial  by  jury,  but  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  every  right  that  is  not 
expressly  secured  orexcepted,  from  that  general[power.  I  conceive 
that  such  general  powers  are  very  dangerous.  Our  great  unaliena¬ 
ble  rights  ought  to  be  secured  from  being  destroyed  by  such  unlimi¬ 
ted  powers,  either  by  a  bill  of  rights,  or  by  an  express  provision  in 
the  body  of  the  constitution.  It  is  immaterial  in  which  of  these  two 
modes  rights  are  secured. 

I  fear  I  have  tired  the  patience  of  the  committee  ;  I  beg,  however 
the  indulgence  of  making  a  few  more  observations.  TJiere  is  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  this  government,  and  ancient  and  modern  ones. 
The  division  of  power  in  ancient  governments,  or  in  any  government 
at  present  in  the  world,  was  founded  on  diffeient  principles  from 
those  of  this  government.  What  was  the  object  of  the  distribution 
of  power  in  Rome?  It  will  not  be  controverted,  that  there  was  a 
composition  or  mixture  of  aristocracy,  democracy,  and  monarchy, 
each  of  which  had  a  repellent  quality,  which  enabled  it  to  preserve 
itself  from  being  destroyed  by  the  other  two — so  that  the  balance 
was  continually  maintained.  This  is  the  case  in  the  English  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  has  the  most  similitude  to  our  own.  There  they  have 
distinct  orders  in  the  government,  which  possess  real  efficient  repel¬ 
lent  qualities.  Let  us  illustrate  it.  If  the  commons  prevail,  may 
they  not  vote  the  king  useless?'  If  the  king  prevails,  will  not  the 
commons  lose  their  liberties?  Without  the  interposition  of  a  check, 
without  a  balance,  the  one  would  destroy  the  other.  The  lords,  the 
third  branch,  keep  up  this  balance.  The  wisdom  of  the  English 
constitution  has  given  a  share  of  legislation  to  each  of  the  three 

branches,  which  enables  it  effectually  to  defend  itself,  and  which 
preserves  the  liberty  of  the  people  of  that  country. 


$20  DEBATES.  [Momrob. 

What  is  the  object  of  the  division  of  power  in  America!  Why  is 
the  government  divided  into  different  branches!  For  a  more  faithful 
and  regular  administration.  Where  is  there  a  check!  We  have  more 
to  apprehend  from  the  union  of  these  branches,  than  from  the  subver¬ 
sion  of  any  ;  and  this  union  will  destroy  the  rights  of  the  people. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  this  coalition.  But  the  contest  which 
will  probably  subsist  between  the  general  government  and  the  indi¬ 
vidual  governments,  will  tend  to  produce  it.  There  is  a  division  of 
sovereignty  between  the  national  and  state  governments.  How  laT 
then  will  they  coalesce  together!  Is  it  not  to  be  supposed  that  there 
will  be  a  conflict  between  them!  If  so,  will  not  the  members  of  (he 
former  combine  together!  Where  then  will  be  the  check  to  prevent 
encroachments  on  the  rights  of  the  people!  There  is  not  a  third  es¬ 
sentially  distinct  branch  to  preserve  a  just  equilibrium,  or  to  prevent 
such  encroachments.  In,  developing  this  plan  of  government,  w© 
nought  to  attend  to  the  necessity  of  having  checks.  I  can  see  no  real 
checks  in  it.  » 

Let  us  first  enquire  into  the  probability  of  harmony  between  the 
•general  and  individual  governments  ;and  in  the  next  place,  into  the 
responsibility  of  the  general  government,  either  to  t fee  people  at  large 
or  to  the  state  legislatures.  As  to  the  harmony  between  the  gov¬ 
ernments,  communion  of  powers,  legislative  and  judicial  forbids  it. 

I  have  never  yet  heard,  or  read  in  the  history  of  mankind,  of  a  con¬ 
current  exercise  of  power  by  two  parties,  without  producing  a  strug¬ 
gle  between  them.  Consult  the  human  heart.  Does  it  not  prove, 
that  where  two  parties,  or  bodies,  seek  the  same  object,  there  must 
be  a  stuggle?  Now,  sir,  as  to  the  responsibility — let  us  begin  with 
the  House  of  Representatives,  which  is  the  most  democratic  part. 
The  representatives  are  elected  by  the  people — but  what  is  the 
tesponsibility!  At  the  expiration  of  the  time  for  which  they  arc 
elected,  the  people  may  discontinue  them,  but  if  they  commit  high 
crimes,  how  are  they  to  be  punished!  I  apprehend  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  cannot  punish  them,  because  it  would  be  a  subversion  of 
the  rights  of  the  people.  The  state  legislatures  cannot  punish  them, 
because  they  have  no  control  over  them  in  any  one  instance.  In  the 
next,  consider  the  responsibility  of  the  senators.  To  whom  ar® 
they  amenable!  I  apprehend  to  none.  They  are  punishable, 
neither  by  the  general  government,  nor  by  the  state  legislatures; 
The  latter  may  call  them  to  an  account,  but  they  have  no  power  to 
punish  them. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  responsibility  of  the  president.  He  is 
elected  for  four  years,  and  not  excluded  from  re-election.  Suppose 
he  violates  the  laws  and  constitution,  or  commit  high  crimes,  by 
whom  is  he  to  be  tried!  By  his  own  council — by  those  who  advis# 


VIRGINIA. 


Monroe.] 


£31 


him  to  commit  such  violations  and  crimes!  This  subverts  the  prin~ 
eipl  es  of  justice,  as  it  secures  him  from  punishment.  He  commands 
the  army  of  the  United  states  till  he  is  condemned.  Will  not  this 
be  an  inducement  to  foreign  nations  to  use  their  arts  and  intrigue® 
to  corrupt  his  counsellors!  If  he  and  his  counsellors  can  escape 
punishment  with  so  much  facility,  what  a  delightful  prospect  must 
it  be  for  a  foreign  nation,  which  may  be  desirous  of  gaining  territori¬ 
al  or  commercial  advantages  over  us,  to  practice  on  them!  The  cer¬ 
tainty  of  success  would  be  equal  to  the  impunity.  How  is  he  elec¬ 
ted!  By  electors  appointed  according  to  the  directions  of^the  state 
legislatures.  Does  the  plan  of  government  contemplate  any  other 
mode!  A  combination  between  the  electors  might  easily  happen, 
which  would  fix  on  a  man  in  every  respect  improper.  Contemplate- 
this  in  all  its  consequences.  Is  it  not  the  object  of  foreign  courts  to 
have  such  a  man  possessed  of  this  power,  as  would  be  inclined 
to  promote  their  interests!  What  an  advantageous  prospect  for 
France  and  Great  Britain  to  secure  the  favor  and  attachment  of  the 
president,  bv  exerting  their  power  and  influence  to  continue  him  in 
the  office!  Foreign  nations  may,  by  their  intrigues,  have  great  in¬ 
fluence  in  each  state,  in  the  election  of  the  president,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  but  their  efforts  will  be  tried  to  the  utmost.  Will  not  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  president  himself  have  great  weight  in  his  re-election! 
The  variety  of  the  offices  at  his  disposal,  will  acquire  him  the  fa¬ 
vor  and  attachment  of  those  who  aspire  after  them,  and  of  the  offi¬ 
cers,  and  their  friends.  He  will  have  some  connexion  with  tha 
members  of  the  different  branches  of  government.  They  will  ee- 
teem  him,  because  they  will  be  acquainted  with  him,  live  in  the 
tame  town  with  him,  and  often  dine  with  him.  This  familiar  and 
frequent  intercourse  will  secure  him  great  influence.  I  presume  that 
when  once  he  is  elected,  he  may  be  elected  forever.  Beside*  his 
Influence  in  the  town  where  he  will  reside,  he  will  have  very  consid¬ 
erable  weight  in  the  different  states.  Those  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  human  mind  in  all  its  operations,  can  clearly  foresee  thie. 
Powerful  men  in  different  states  will  form  a  friendship  with  him* 
For  these  reasons,  I  conceive,  the  same  president  may  always  be 
continued,  and  be  in  fact  elected  by  congress,  instead  of  indepen¬ 
dent  and  intelligent  electors.  It  is  a  misfortune,  more  than  once  ex¬ 
perienced,  that  the  representatives  of  the  states  do  not  pursue  the 
particular  interest  of  their  own  state.  When  we  take  a  more  aeea» 
mte  view  of  the  principles  of  the  senate,  we  shall  have  grounds  to 
fear  that  the  interest  of  our  state  may  be  totally  neglected — nay, 
feat  our  legislative  influence  will  be,  as  if  we  were  actually  expelled 
er  banished  out  of  congress.  The  senators  are  amenable  to  and  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  state*.  They  have  a  negative  on  all  iaw#,  maf  wig- 


222  DEBATES.  [Marshall. 

inate  any  except  money  bills,  and  direct  the  affairs  of  the  executive* 
Seven  states  are  a  majority,  and  can  in  most  cases  bind  the  rest ; 
from  which  reason,  the  interest  of  certain  states  alone  will  be  con¬ 
sulted.  Although  the  house  of  representatives  is  calculated  on  na¬ 
tional  principles,  and  should  they  attend  contrary  to  my  expecta¬ 
tions,  to  the  general  interests  of  the  union,  yet  the  dangerous  exclu¬ 
sive  powers  given  to  the  senate,  will,  in  my  opinion,  counterbalance 
their  exertions.  'Consider  the  connection  of  the  senate  with  the 
executive.  Has  it  not  an  authority  over  all  the  acts  of  the  execu¬ 
tive?  What  are  the  acts  which  the  president  can  do  without  them? 
What  number  is  requisite  to  make  treaties?  A  very  small  numSIr. 
Two  thirds  of  those  wbo  may  happen  to  be  present,  may,  with  the 
president,  make  treaties  that  shall  sacrifice  the  dearest  interests  of 
the  southern  states — which  may  relinquish  part  of  our  territories — 
which  may  dismember  the  United  states.  There  is  no  check  to  pre¬ 
vent  this — there  is  no  responsibility,  or  power  to  punish  it.  He  is 
to  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate^ 
to  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls,  judges 
of  the  supreme  court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United  States. 
The  concurrence  of  a  bare  majority  of  those  who  may  be  present, 
will  enable  him  to  do  these  important  acts.  It  does  not  require  the 
consent  of  two  thirds,  even  of  those  who  may  be  present.  Thus,  I 
conceive  the  government  is  put  entirely  into  the  hands  of  seven 
states  ;  indeed  into  the  hands  of  two-thirds  of  a  majority.  The  ex¬ 
ecutive  branch  is  under  their  protection,  and  yet  they  are  freed  from 
a  direct  charge  of  combination. 

Upon  reviewing  this  government,  I  must  say,  under  my  present 
impression,  I  think  it  a  dangerous'  government,  and  calculated  to 
secure  neither  the  interests,  nor  the  rights  of  our  countrymen.  Un¬ 
der  such  an  one,  I  shall  be  averse  to  embark  the  best  hopes  and  pros¬ 
pects  of  a  free  people.  We  have  struggled  long  to  bring  about  this 
revolution,  by  which  we  enjoy  our  present  freedom  and  security. 
Why  then  this  haste — this  wild  precipitation? 

I  have  fatigued  the  committee,  but  as  I  have  not  yet  said  all  that 
I  wish  upon  the  subject,  I  trust  I  shall  be  indulged  another  day. 

Mr.  JOHN  'MARSHALL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  conceive  that  the 
object  of  the  discussion  now  before  us,  is,  whether  democracy  or 
despotism,  be  most  eligible.  I  am  sure  that  those  who  framed  the 
system  submitted  to  our  investigation,  aird  those  who  now  support 
it,  intend  the  establishment  and  security  of  the  former.  The  sup¬ 
porters  of  the  constitution  claim  the  title  of  being  firm  friends  of 
the  liberty  and  the  rights  of  mankind.  They  say,  that  they  consider  it 
;as, the  best  means  of  protecting  liberty.  We,  sir,  idolize  democrat 
tcy,  Those  Who  opposeit  have ‘bestowed  -culngiums  on  monarchy. 


Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


223 


'We  prefer  this  system  to  any  monarchy,  because  we  are  convinced 
th&t  it  has  a  greater  tendency  to  secure  our  liberty  and  promote  our 
"happiness.  We  admire  it,  because  we  think  it  a  well  regulated  de¬ 
mocracy.  It  is  recommended  to  the  good  people  of  this  country— 
they  are,  through  ns,  to  declare  whether  it  be  such  a  plan  of  govern¬ 
ment,  as  will  establish  and  secure  their  freedom. 

Permit  me  attend  to  what  the  honorable  gentleman  (Mr  Henry) 
has  said.  He  has  expatiated  on  the  necessity  of  a  due  attention  to 
certain  maxims— to  certain  fundamental  principles,  from  which  a 
free  people  ought  never  to  depart.  I  concur  with  him  in-the  propri* 
e^of  the  observance  of  such  maxims.  They  are  necessary  in  any 
government,  but  more  essential  to  a  democracy  than  to  any  other. 
What  are  the  favorite  maxims  of  democracy?  A  strict  observance  of 
justice  and  public  faith,  and  a  steady  adherance  to  virtue.  These, 
Sir,  are  the  principles  of  a  good  government.  No  mischief — no 
misfortune  ought  to  deter  us  from  a  strict  observance  of  justice  and 
jpublic  faith.  Would  to  Heaven  that  these  principles  had  been  ob¬ 
served  under  the  present  government!  Had  this  been  the  case,  the 
friends  of  liberty  would  not  be  so  willing' now  to  part  with  it.  Can 
we  boast  that  our  government  is  founded  on  these  maxims?  Can  we 
^pretend  to  the  enjoyment  of  political  freedom  or  security,  when  we 
are  told,  that  a  man  has  been,  by  an  act  of  assembly,  struck  out  of 
existence,  without  a  trial  by  jury,  without  examination,  without  be¬ 
ing  confronted  with  his  accusers  and  witnesses — without  the  bene¬ 
fits  of  the  law  of  the  land?  Where  is  our  safety,  when  we  are  told, 
that  this  act  was  justifiable,  because  the  person  was  not  a  Socrates^ 
What  has  become  of  the  worthy  member’s  maxims?  Is  this  one  of 
them?  Shall  it  be  a  maxim,  that  a  man  shall  be  deprived  of  his  life 
without  the  benefit  of  law?  Shall  such  a  deprivation  of  life  be  jus¬ 
tified  by  answering,  that  the  man’s  life  was  not  taken  secundum  ar- 
tem ,  because  he  was  a  bad  man?  Shall  it  be  a  maxim,  that  govern¬ 
ment  ought  not  to  he  empowered  to  protect  virtue? 

The  honorable  member,  after  attempting  to  vindicate  that  tyranni¬ 
cal  legislative  act  to. which  I  have  been  alluding,  proceeded  to  take 
a  view  of  the  dangers  to  which  this  country  is  exposed.  He  told 
us,  that  the  principle  danger  arose,  from  a  government,  which  if 
adopted,  would  give  away  the  Mississippi.  I  intended  to  proceed 
regularly,  by  attending  to  the  clause  under  debate,  but  I  must  reply 
to  some  observations  which  were  dwelt  upon,  to  make  impressions 
on  our  minds,  unfavorable  to  the  plan  upon  the  table.  Have  we  no 
navigation  in,  or  do  we  derive  no  benefit  from,  the  ‘Mississippi? 
How  shall  we  retain  it?  By  retaining  that  weak  government  wliioh. 
has  hitherto  kept  it  from  us?  Is  it  thus  that  we  shall  secure  that 
navigation?  Give  the  government  the  power  of  retaining  it,  and 


324 


DEBATES. 


[Marshall* 


then  we  may  hope  to  derive  actual  advantages  from  it.  Till  we  do 
this,  we  cannot  expect  that  a  government  which  hitherto  has  not  been 
able  to  protect  it,  will  have  the  power  to  do  it  hereafter.  Have  we 
attended  too  long  to  consider  whether  this  government  would  be  able 
to  protect  us?  Shall  we  wait  for  further  proofs  of  its  inefficacy?  If 
on  mature  consideration,  the  constitution  will  be  found  to  be  per¬ 
fectly  right  on  the  subject  of  treaties,  and  containing  no  danger  of 
loosing  that  navigation,  will  he  still  object?  Will  he  object  because 
eight  states  are  unwilling  to  part  with  it?  This  is  no  good  ground 
of  objection. 

He  then  stated  the  necessity  and  probability  of  obtaining  am^* 
ments.  This  we  ought  to  postpone  until  we  come  to  that  clause, 
and  make  up  our  minds,  whether  there  be  any  thing  unsafe  in  this 
system.  He  conceived  it  impossible  to  obtain  amendments  after 
adopting  it.  If  he  was  right,  does  not  his  own  argument  prove, 
that  in  his  own  conception,  previous  amendments  cannot  be  had  f 
for,  Sir,  if  subsequent  amendments  cannot  be  obtained,  shall  we  get 
amendments  before  we  ratify?  The  reasons  against  the  latter  do  no^ 
apply  against  the  former.  There  are  in  this  state,  and  in  every  state 
in  the  union,  many  who  are  decided  enemies  of  the  union.  Refleet 
«n  the  probable  conduct  of  such  men.  What  will  they  do?  They 
will  bring  amendments  which  are  local  in  their  nature,  and  which 
they  know  will  not  be  accepted.  W*hat  security  have  we,  that  oth¬ 
er  states  will  not  do  the  same?  We  are  told  that  many  in  the  states 
were  violently  opposed  to  it.  They  are  more  mindful  of  local  inter¬ 
ests.  They  will  never  propose  such  amendments,  as  they  think 
would  be  obtained.  Disunion  will  be  their  object.  This  will  be 
attained  by  the  proposal  of  unreasonable  amendments.  This,  Sir, 
though  a  strong  cause,  is  not  the  only  one  that  will  militate  against 
previous  amendments.  Look  at  the  comparative  temper  of  this 
•ountry  now,  and  when  the  late  federal  convention  met.  We  had 
to  idea  then  of  any  particular  system.  The  formation  of  the  most 
perfect  plan  was  our  object  and  wish.  It  was  imagined  that  the 
states  would  accede  to,  and  be  pleased  with  the  proposition  that 
would  be  made  them.  Consider  the  violence  of  opinions,  the  pre¬ 
judices  and  animosities  which  have  been  since  imbibed.  Will  not 
1  these  greatly  operate  against  mutual  concessions,  or  a  friendly  coo- 
•urrence?  This  will,  however,  be  taken  up  more  properly  at  anothwr 
time.  He  eays,  we  wish  to  have  a  strong,  energetic,  powerful  go¬ 
vernment.  We  contend  for  a  well  regulated  democracy. — He  insist 
nates,  that  the  power  of  the  government  has  been  enlarged  by  the 
•onveniion,  and  that  we  may  apprehend  it  will  be  enlarged  by  oth¬ 
ers.  The  convention  did  not  in  fact  assume  any  power. 

They  have  proposed  to  our  consideration  a  scheme  of  governgtenf 


Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


225 


'which  they  thought  adviseable.  We  are  not  bound  to  adopt  it,  if  we 
disapprove  of  it.  Had  not  every  individual  in  this  community  a 
right  to  tender  that  scheme  which  he  thought  most  conducive  to  the 
welfare  of  his  country'?  Have  not  several  gentlemen  already  de¬ 
monstrated,  that  the  convention  did  not  exceed  their  powers?  But 
the  congress  have  the  power  of  making  bad  laws,  it  seems.  The 
senate,  with  the  president,  he  informs  us,  may  make  a  treaty  which 
shall  be  disadvantageous  to  us— and  that  if  they  be  not  good  men, 
it  will  not  be  a  good  constitution.  I  shall  ask  the  worthy  piember 
only,  if  the  people  at  large,  and  then  only  ought  to  makeTaws  and 
tre^^s?  Has  any  man  this  in  contemplation?  You  cannot  exercise 
the  powers  of  government  personally  yourselves.  You  must  trust 
agents.  If  so,  will  you  dispute  giving  them  the  power  of  acting  for 
you,  from  an  existing  possibility  that  they  may  abuse  it1*  As  long 
as  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  transact  your  business  in  person,  if  you 
repose  no  confidence  in  delegates,  because  there  is  a  possibility  of 
their  abusiug  it,  you  can  have  no  government ;  for  the  power  of  do¬ 
ing  good  is  inseparable  from  that  of  doing  some  evil. 

WTe  may  derive  from  Holland,  lessons  very  beneficial  to  ourselves. 
Happy  that  country  which  can  avail  itself  of  the  misfortunes  of 
ethers— which  can  gain  knowledge  from  that  source  without  fatal 
experience!  What  has  produced  the  late  disturbances  in  that  coun¬ 
try?  The  want  of  such  a  government  as  is  on  your  table,  and  having 
in  some  measure  such  a  one  as  you  are  about  to  part  with.  The 


want  of  proper  powers  in  the  government — the  consequent  deranged 
and  relaxed  administration — the  violence  of  contending  parties,  and 
inviting  foreign  powers  to  interpose  in  their  disputes,  have  subjected 
them  to  all  the  mischiefs  which  have  interrupted  their  harmony.  I 
cannot  express  my  astonishment  at  his  high  colored  eulogium  on 
|  such  a  government.  Can  any  thing  be  more  dissimilar  than  the  re¬ 
lation  between  the  British  government,  and  the  colonies,  and  the  re¬ 
lation  between  congress  and  the  states?  We  were  not  represented  in 
parliament.  Here  we  are  represented.  Arguments  which  prove 
ithe  impropriety  of  being  taxed  by  Britain,  do  not  hold  against  the 
exercise  of  taxation  by  congress. 

Let  me  pay  attention  to  the  observation  of  the  gentleman  who  was 
test  up,  that  the  power  of  taxation  ought  not  to  be  given  to  congress. 
This  subject  requires  the  undivided  attention  of  this  house.  This 
I  power  I  think  essentially  necessary,  for  without  it,  there  will  be  no 
I  efficiency  in  the  government.  W'e  have  had  a  sufficient  demonstra¬ 
tion  of  the  vanity  of  depending  on  requisitions.  How  then  can  the  gen¬ 
eral  government  exist  without  this  power?  The  possibility  of  its 
being  abused,  is  urged  as  an  argument  against  its  expediency.  To 
I  very  little  purpose  did  Virginia  discover  the  defects  in  the  old  sys- 


VOL.  3. 


15 


V 


226 


DEBATES. 


[Marshall. 


tern — to  little  purpose  indeed  did  she  propose  improvements — and 
to  no  purpose  is  this  plan  constructed  for  the  promotion  of  our  hap¬ 
piness,  if  we  refuse  it  now,  because  it  is  possible  that  it  may  be 
abused.  The  confederation  has  nominal  powers,  but  no  means  to 
carry  them  into  effect.  If  a  system  of  government  were  devised  by 
more  than  human  intelligence,  it  would  not  be  effectual  if  the  means 
were  not  adequate  to  the  power.  All  delegated  powers  are  liable  to 
be  abused.  Arguments  drawn  from  this  source  go  in  direct  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  government,  and  in  recommendation  of  anarchy;  The 
friends  of  the  constitution  are  as  tenacious  of  liberty  as  its  enemies. 
They  wish  to  give  no  power  that  will  endanger  it.  They  ^}h 
to  give  the  government  powers  to  secure  and  protect  it.  Our  enqui¬ 
ry  here  must  be,  whether  the  power  of  taxation  be  necessary  to  per¬ 
form  the  objects  of  the  constitution,  and  whether  it  be  safe  and  as 
well  guarded  as  human  wisdom  can  do'  it.  W  hat  are  the  objects  of 
the  national  goverment?  To  protect  the  United  States,  and  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  general  welfare.  Protection,  in  time  of  war,  is  one  of  its 
principal  objects.  Until  mankind  shall  cease  to  have  ambition  and 
avarice,  wars  will  arise. 

The  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people  depend  on  the  per¬ 
formance  of  these  great  and  important  duties  of  the  general  govern¬ 
ment.  Can  these  duties  be  performed  by  one  state?  Can  one  state 
protect  us,  and  promote  our  happiness?  The  honorable  gentleman 
who  has  gone  before  me  (Governor  Randolph)  has  shewn  that  \  ir- 
ginia  cannot  do  these  things.  How  then  can  they  be  done?  By 
the  national  government  only.  Shall  we  refuse  to  give  it  power  to 
do  them?  W~e  are  answered,  that  the  powers  may  be  abused  : 
That  though  the  congress  may  promote  our  happiness,  yet  they  may 
prostitute  their  powers  to  destroy  our  liberties.  This  goes  to  the 
destruction  of  all  confidence  in  agents.  WTould  you  believe  that 
men  who  had  merited  your  highest  confidence,  would  deceive  you? 
Would  you  trust  them  again  after  one  deception?  W  hy  then  hesi¬ 
tate  to  trust  the  general  government?  The  object  of  our  enquiry  is 
- — Is  the  power  necessary — and  is  it  guarded?  There  must  be  men 
pkand  money  to  protect  us..  How  are  'armies  to  be  raised*  Must  we 
Lrnot  have  money  for  that  purpose?  But  the  honorable  gentleman 
says,  that  we  need  not  be  afraid  of  war.  Look  at  history,  which 
lias  been  so  often  quoted.  Look  at  the  great  volume  of  human  nature. 
They  will  foretell  you,  that  a  defenceless  country  cannot  be  secure. 
The  nature  of  man  forbids  us  to  conclude,  that  we  are  in  no  danger 
from  war.  The  passion  of  men  stimulate  them  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  weakness  of  others.  The  powers  of  Europe  are  jealous  of 
us.  It  is  our  interest  to  watch  their  conduct,  and  guard  against 
rthera.  They  must  be  pleased  with  our  disunion.  If  we  invite  them 


"  Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


227 


by  our  weakness  to  attack  us,  will  they  not  do  it?  If  we  add  debil¬ 
ity  to  our  present  situation,  a  partition  of  America  may  take  place* 

It  is  then  necessary  to  give  the  government  that  power  in  time  of 
peace  which  the  necessity  of  war  will  render  indispensable,  or  else 
we  shall  be  attacked  unprepared.  The  experience  ot  the  world,  a 
knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  our  own  particular  experience,  will 
confirm  this  truth.  When  danger  will  come  upon  us,  may  we  not 
do  what  we  were  on  the  point  of  doing  once  already— that  is,  ap¬ 
point  a  dictator?  Were  those  who  are  now  friends  to  th isyJo ns ti tui¬ 
tion.  less  active  in  the  defence  of  liberty  on  that  trying  occasion, 
than  those  who  oppose  it?  When  foreign  dangers  come,  may  not 
the  fear  of  immediate  destruction  by  foreign  enemies,  impel  us  to 
take  a  most  dangerous  step?  Where  then  will  be  our  safety?  We 
may  now  regulate  apd  frame  a  plan  that  will  enable  us  to  repel  at¬ 
tacks,  and  render  a  recurrence  to  dangerous  expedients  unnecessary. 
If  we  be'  prepared  to  defend  ourselves,  there  will  be  little  induce¬ 
ment  to  attack  us.  But  if  we  defer  giving  the  necessary  power  to 
the  general  government,  till  the  moment  of  danger  arrives,  we  shall 
give  it  then,  and  with  an  unsparing  hand.  America,  like  other  na¬ 
tions,  may  be  exposed  to  war.  The  propriety  of  giving  this  power 
will  be  proved  by  the  history  of  the  world,  and  particularly  of  mod¬ 
ern  republics.  I  defy  you  to  produce  a  single  instance  where  requi¬ 
sition's  on  several  individual  states  composing  a  confederacy,  have 
been  honestly  complied  with.  Bid  gentlemen  expect  to  see  such 
punctuality  complied  with,  in  America?  If  they  did,  our  own  ex¬ 
perience  shews  the  contrary. 

We  are  told,  that  the  confederation  carried  us  through  the  war. 
Had  not  the  enthusiasm  of  liberty  inspired  us  with  unanimity,  that 
system  would  never  have  carried  us  through  it.  It  would  have  been 
much  sooner  terminated  had  that  government  been  possessed  of  due 
energy.  The  inability  of  congress,'  and  the  failure  of  states  to 
comply  with  the  constitutional  requisitions,  rendered  our  resistance 
less  efficient  than  it  might  have  been  The  weakness  of  that  p-overn- 
ment  caused  troops  to  be  against  us  which  ought  to  have  been  on 
our  side,  and  prevented  all  resources  of  the  community  from  being 
called  at  once  into  action.  The  extreme  readiness  of  the  people  to 
make  their  utmost  exertions  toward  off  solely  the  pressing  danger, sup¬ 
plied  the  place  of  requisitions.  When  they  came  solely  to  be  depen¬ 
ded  on,  their  inutility  was  fully  discovered.  A  bare  sense  of  duty,  or  a 
regard  to  propriety,  is  too  feeble  to  induce  men  to  comply  with  obli¬ 
gations.  W e  deceive  oursel  ves  if  we  expect  any  efficacy  from  these. 
If  requisitions  will  not  avail,  the  government  must  have  the  sinews 
of  war  some  other  way.  Requisitions  cannot  be  effectual.  They 
Trill  be  productive  Qf  delay,  and  will  uhijnately  be  inefficient. 


223 


DEBATES. 


Marshall.! 


By  direct  taxation,  the  necessities  of  the  government  will  be  sup¬ 
plied  in  a  peaceable  manner,  without  irritating  the  minds  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.  But  requisitions  cannot  be  rendered  efficient  without  a  civil 
war — without  great  expense  of  money,  and  the  blood  of  our  citizens. 
Are  there  any  other  means'?  Yes,  that  congress  shall  apportion  the 
respective  quotas  previously,  and  if  not  complied  with  by  the  states, 
that  then  this  dreaded  power  shall  be  exercised.  The  operation  of 
this  has  been  described  by  the  gentleman  who  opened  the  debate. 
He  cannot  be  answered. — This  great  objection  to  that  system  re¬ 
mains  unanswered.  Is  there  no  other  argument  which  ought  to  have 
weight  with  us  on  this  subject?  Delay  is  a  strong  and  pointed  ob¬ 
jection  to  it. 

We  are  told  by  the  gentleman  who  spokeiast,  that  direct  taxation 
is  unnecessary,  because  we  are  not  involved  in  war.  I  his  admits 
the  propriety  of  recurring  to  direct  taxation  if  we  w’ere  engaged  in. 
war.  It  has  not  been  proved,  that  we  have  no  dangers  to  apprehend 
on  this  point.  What  will  be  the  consequence  of  the  system  propo¬ 
sed  by  the  worthy  gentleman?  Suppose  the  states  should  reluse? 

The  worthy  gentleman  who  is  so  pointedly  opposed  to  the  consti¬ 
tution,  proposes  remonstrances.  Is  it  a  time  for  congress  to  remon¬ 
strate,  or  compel  a  compliance  with  requisitions,  when  the  whole 
wisdom  of  the  union,  and  the  power  of  congress  are  opposed  to  a  fo¬ 
reign  enemy?  Another  alternative  is,  that  if  the  states  shall  appropri¬ 
ate  certain  funds  for  the  use  of  congress,  that  congress,  shall  not  lay 
direct  taxes  ;  suppose  the  funds  appropriated  by  the  state  for  the  use 
«f  congress  should  be, inadequate,  it  will  not  be  determined  whether 
*hey  be  insufficient  till  after  tbe  time  at  which  the  quota  ought  to 
kave  been  pa:d,  and  then  after  so  long  a  delay,  the  means  of  procu¬ 
ring  money,  which  ought  to  have  been  employed  in  the  first  instance 
snust  be  recurred  to.  May  they  not  be  amused  by  such  ineffectual 
and  temporising  alternatives,  from  year  to  year,  until  America  shall 
be  enslaved?  The  failure  in  one  state,  will  authorise  a  failure  in  an¬ 
other.  The  calculation  in  some  states  that  others  will  fail  to  pro¬ 
duce  general  failures.  This  will  also  be  attended  with  all  the  ex¬ 
penses  which  we  are  anxious  to  avoid.  What  are  the  advantages  te 
induce  us  to  embrace  this  system?  If  they  mean  that  requisitions 
should  be  complied  with,  it  will  be  the  same  as  if  congress  had  the 
power  of  direct  taxation.  The  same  amount  will  be  paid  by  the 

It  is  objected,  that  congress  will  not  know  how  to  lay  taxes  so  ae 
to  be  easy  and  convenient  for  tbe  people  at  large.  Let  us  pay  strict 
attention  to  this  objection  If  it  appears  to  be  totally  without  feue- 
dation,  the  necessit}r  oi  levying  direct  taxes  will  obviate  what  ge«- 
*  tiifioi:  nor  will  there  be  any  color  for  refusing  to  grant  the  p<  - 


Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


229 


wer.  The  objects  of  direct  taxes  are  well  understood — they  are  but  few 
— what  are  they?  Lands,  slaves,  stock  of  all  kinds,  and  a  few  other 
articles  of  domestic  property.  Can  you  believe  that  ten  men  selec¬ 
ted  from  all  parts  of  the  state,  chosen  because  they  know  the  situa¬ 
tion  of  the  people,  will  be  unable  to  determine  so  as  to  make  the  tax 
equal  on,  and  convenient  for  the  people  at  large?  Does  any  man  be¬ 
lieve,  that  they  would  lay  the  tax  without  the  aid  of  other  informa¬ 
tion,  besides  their  own  knowledge,  when  they  know  that  the  very 
object  for  which  they  are  elected  is  to  lay  the  taxes  in  ^judicious 
and  convenient  manner?  If  they  wish  to  retain  the  affection  of  the 
people  at  large,  will  they  not  inform  themselves  of  every  circum¬ 
stance  that  can  throw  light  on  the  subject?  Have  they  but  one  source 
of  information?  Besides  their  own  experience— -their  knowledge  of 
what  will  suit  their  constituents,  they  will  have  the  benefit  of  the 
knowledge  and  experience  of  the  state  legislature.  They  will  see 
in  what  manner  the  legislature  of  Virginia  collects  its  taxes.  Will 
they  be  unable  to  follow  their  example?  The  gentlemen  who  shall 
be  delegated  to  congress  will  have  every  source  of  information  that 
the  legislatures  of  the  states  can  have,  and  can  lay  the  tax  as  equal¬ 
ly  on  the  people  and  with  as  little  oppression  as  they  can.  If  then 
it  be  admitted,  that  they  can  understand  how  to  lay  them  equally, 
and  conveniently,  are  we  to  admit  that  they  will  not  do  it  ;  but  that 
in  violation  of  every  principle  that  ought  to  govern  men,  they  will 
lay  them  so  as  to  oppress  us?  What  benefit  will  they  have  by  it? 
Will  it  be  promotive  of  their  re-election?  Will  it  be  by  wantonly 
imposing  hardships  and  difficulties  on  the  people  at  large,  that  they 
will  promote  their  own  interest,  and  secure  their  re-election?  To  me 
it  appears  introvertible,  that  they  will  settle  them  in  such  a  manner, 
as  to  be  easy  for  the  people.  Is  the  system  so  organized  as  to  make 
taxation  dangerous?  I  shall  not  go  to  the  various  checks  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  but  examine  whether  the  imme  •  iate  representation  of  the 
people  be  well  constructed.  I  conceive  its  organization  -to  be  suffi¬ 
ciently  satisfactory  to  the  warmest  friend  of  freedom.  No  tax  can 
be  laid  without  the  consent  of  the  house  of  representatives.  If  there 
be  no  impropriety  in  the  mode  of  electing  the  representatives,  can 
any  danger  be  apprehended?  They  are  elected  by  those,  who  can 
elect  representatives  in  the  state  legislature.  How  can  the  votes  of 
the  electors  be  influenced?  By  nothing  but  the  character  and  con¬ 
duct  of  the  man  they  vote  for.  What  object  can  influence  them  when 
about  choosing  him?  They  have  nothing  to  direct  them  in  the  choice 
but  their  own  good.  Have  you  not  as  pointed  and  strong  a  security  as 
you  can  possibly  have?  It  is  a  mode  that  secures  an  impossibility  ol 
being  corrupted.  If  they  are  to  be  chosen  for  their  wisdom,  virtue 
and  integrity,  what  inducementkave  they  to  infringe  on  our  freedom? 


230 


DEBATES. 


[.Marshall,  • 


We  are  told  that  they  may  abuse  their  power.  Are  there  strong  mo-- 
tives  to  prompt  them  to  abuse  it1?  Will  not  such  abuse  militate 
against  their  own  interest]  Will  not  they  and  their  friends  feel  the 
effects  of  iniquitous  measures'?  Does  the  representative  remain  in  of¬ 
fice  for  life?  Does  he  transmit  his  title  Qf  representative  to  his  son] 
Is  he  secured  from  the  burthen  imposed  on  the  community]  To  pro¬ 
cure  their  re-election,  it  will  be  necessary  for  them  to  confer  with  the 
people  at  large  and  convince  them  that  the  taxes  laid  are  for  their 
good.  I  am  able  to  judge  on  the  subject,  the  power  of  taxation  now 
before  us  is  wisely  conceded,  and  the  representatives  are  wisely 
elected. 

The  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  a  government  should  ever  de¬ 
pend  on  the  affections  of  the  people.  It  must  be  so.  It  is  the  best 
support  it  can  have.  This  government  merits  the  confidence  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  and  I  make  no  doubt  will  have  it.  Then  he  informed  us  again, 
of  the  disposition  of  Spain  with  respect  to,  the  Mississippi,  and  the 
conduct  of  the  government  with  regard  to  it.  To  the  debility  of  the 
confederation  alone,  may  justly  be  imputed  every  cause  of  complaint 
on  this  subject.  Whenever  gentlemen  will  bring  forward  their  ob¬ 
jections,  I  trust  we  can  prove,  that  no  danger  to  the  navigation  of 
that  river  can  arise,  from  the  adoption  of  this  constitution.  I  beg 
those  gentlemen  who  may  be  affected  by  it,  to  suspend  their  judg¬ 
ment  till  they  hear  it  discussed.  Will,  says  he,  the  adoption  of  this 
constitution  pay  our  debts!  It  will  compel  the  states  to  pay  their 
quotas.  Without  this,  Virginia  Will  be  unable  to  pay.  Unless  all 
the  states  pry,  she  cannot.  Though  the  states  will  not  coin  money, 
(as  we  are  told)  yet  this  government  will  bring  forth  and  proportion 
all  the  strength  of  the  union.  That  economy  and  industry  are  essen¬ 
tial  to  our  happiness  will  be  denied  by  no  man.  But  the  present 
government  will  not  add  to  our  industry.  It  takes  away  the  incite¬ 
ments  to  industry,  by  rendering  property  insecure  and  unprotected. 
It  is  the  paper  on  your  table  that  will  promote  and  encourage  indus¬ 
try.  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode  Island  have  rejected  it,  he  tells 
us,  New  Hampshire,  if  my  information  be  right,  will  certainly  adopt 
it.  The  report  spread  in  this  country,  of  which  I  have  heard,  is  that 
the  representatives  of  that  state  having,  on  meeting,  found  they  were 
instructed  to  vote  against  it,  returned  to  their  constituents  without 
determining  the  question,  to  convince  them  of  their  being  mistaken, 
and  of  the  propriety  of  adopting  it. 

The  extent  of  the  country  is  urged  as  another  objection  as  being* 
too  great  for  a  republican  government'.  This  objection  has  been 
handed  from  author,  to  author,,  and  has  been  certainly  misunder¬ 
stood  and  misapplied.  To  what  does  it  owe  its  source!  To  obser¬ 
vations  and  criticisms  on  governments,  where  representation  did  not 


VIRGINIA. 


231 


Marshall.] 

exist.  As  to  the  legislative  power,  was  it"ever  supposed  inadequate 
to  any  extent?  Extent  of  country  may  render  it  difficult  to  execute 
the  laws,  but  not  to  legislate.  Extent  of  country  does  not  extend, 
the  power.  What  will  be  sufficiently  energetic  and  operative  in  a 
small  territory,  will  be  feeble  when  extended  over  a  wide  extended 
country.  The  gentleman  tells  us,  there  are  no  checks  in  this  plan. 
What  has  become  of  his  enthusiastic  eulogium  on  the  American 
spirit?  We  should  find  a  check  and  control  when  oppressed,  from 
that  source.  In  this  country,  there  is  no  exclusive  personal  stock 
of  interest.  The  interest  of  the  community  is  blended  ancf  insepara¬ 
bly  connected  with  that  of  the  individual.  When  he  promotes  his 
own,  he  promotes  that  of  the  community.  When  we  consult  the 
common  good,  we  consult  our  own.  When  he  desires  such  checks 
as  these,  he  will  find  them  abundantly  here.  They  are  the  best 
checks.  What  has  become  of  his  eulogium  on  the  Virginia  consti¬ 
tution?  Do  the  checks  in  this  plan  appear  less  excellent  than  those 
of  the  constitution  of  Virginia?  If  the  checks  in  the  constitution  be 
compared  to  the  checks  in  the  Virginia  constitution,  he  will  find  the 
best  security  in  the  former. 

The  temple  of  liberty  was  complete,  said  he,  when  the  people  of 
England  said  to  their  king,  that  he  was  their  servant.  What  axe 
we  to  learn  from  this?  Shall  we  embrace  such  a  system  as  that?  Is 
not  liberty  secure  with  us,  w'here  the  people  hold  all  powers  in  their 
own  hands,  and  delegate  them  cautiously,  for  short  periods,  to  their 
servants,  who  are  accountable  for  the  smallest  maladministration? 
Where  is  the  nation  that  can  boast  greater  security  that  we  do?  We 
want  only  a  system  like  the  paper  before  you,  to  strengthen  and  per¬ 
petuate  this  security.  t 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  asked,  If  there  be  any  safety  or 
freedom,  when  we  give  away  the  sword  and  the  purse?  Shall  the 
people  at  large  hold  the  sword  and  the  purse  without  the  interposi¬ 
tion  of  their  representatives?  Can  the  whole  aggregate  community 
act  personally?  I  apprehend  that  every  gentleman  will  see  the  im¬ 
possibility  of  this.  Must  they  then  not  trust  them  to  others?  To 
whom  are  they  to  trust  them  but  to  their  representatives,  who  are 
accountable  for  their  conduct?  He  represents  secrecy  as  unnecessa¬ 
ry,  and  produces  the  British  government  as  a  proof  of  its  inutility. 
Is  there  no  secrecy  there?  When  deliberating  on  the  propriety  of  de¬ 
claring  war,  or  on  military  arrangements,  do  they  deliberate  in  the 
open  fields?  No,  Sir.  The  British  government  affords  secrecy  when 
necessary,  and  so  ought  every  government.  In  this  plan,  secrecy 
is  only  used  when  it  would  be  fatal  and  pernicious  to  publish  the 
schemes  of  government.  We  are  threatened  with  the  loss  of  our 
liberties  by  the  possible  abuse  of  power,  notwithstanding  the 


DEBATES. 


Marshall. 


m 

maxim, that  those  who  give  may  take  away.  It  is  the  people  that  giv^ 
power,  and  can  take  it  back.  What  shall  restrain  them?  They  are 
the  masters  who  give  it,  and  of  whom  their  servants  hold  it. 

He  then  argues  against  the  system,  because  it  does  not  resemble 
the  British  government,  in  this,  that  the  same  power  that  declares 
war  has  not  the  means  of  carrying  it  on.  Are  the  people  of  En¬ 
gland  more  secure,  if  the  commons  haVe  no  voice  in  declaring  war* 
or  are  we  less  secure  by  having  tlm  senate  joined  with  the  presi¬ 
dent?  It  is  an  absurdity*  says  the  worthy  member,  that  the  same 
man  should  obey  two  masters — that  the  same  collector  should  gath¬ 
er  taxes  for  the  general  government  and  the  states  legislature.  Are 
they  not  both  the  servants  of  the  people?  Are  not  congress  and  the 
state  legislatures  the  agents  of  the  people,  and  are  they  not  to  con¬ 
sult  the  good  of  the  people?  May  not  this  be  effected  by  giving  the 
sam a  officer  the  collection  of  both  taxes?  He  tells  you,  that  it  is  ar» 
absurdity  to  adopt  before  you  amend.  Is  the  object  of  your  adop¬ 
tion  to  mend  solely?  The  objects  of  your  adoption  are  union,  and 
safety  against  foreign  enemies — protection  against  faction — against 
what  has  been  the  destruction  of  all  republics.  These  impel  you  to 
its  adoption.  If  you  adopt  it,  whpt  shall  restrain  you  from  amend¬ 
ing  it,  if  in  trying  it,  amendments  shall  be  found  necessary?  The 
government  is  not  supported  by  force,  but  depending  on  our  free 
will.  When  experience  shall  shew  us  any  inconveniences,  we  cars 
then  correct  it.  But  until  we  have  experience  on  the  subject* 
amendments  as  well  as  the  constitution  itself,  are  to  try.  Let  ug 
try  it,  and  keep  our  hands  free  to  change  it  when  recessary.  If  it 
fee  necessary  to  change  government,  let  us  change  that  government 
which  has  been  found  to  be  defective. — The  difficulty  we  find  in 
amending  the  confederation,  will  not  be  found  in  amending  this  con-, 
titution.  Any  amendments,  in  the  system  before  you,  will  not  go 
to  a  radical  change — a  plain  way  is  pointed  out  for  the  purpose. 
All  will  be  interested  to  change  it,  and  therefore  all  exert  themselve 
in  getting  the  change.  There  is  such  a  diversity  of  sentiment  in 
human  minds,  that  it  is  impossible  we  shall  ever  concur  in  one 
System,  till  we  try  it.  The  power  given  to  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  over  the  time;  place,  and  manner  of  election,  is  also  strongly 
objected  to.  When  we  come  to  that  clause,  we  can  prove  it  is 
highly  necessary,  and  not  dangerous. 

The  worthy  member  has  concluded  his  observations  by  many  eu- 
logiums  on  the  British  constitution.  It  matters  not  to  us  whether 
it  be  a  wise  one  or  not.  I  think  that  for  America  at  least,  the  go¬ 
vernment  on  your  table  is  very  much  superior  to  it,  I  ask  you,  if 
your  house  of  representatives  would  be  better  than  it  is,  if  a  hun¬ 
dredth  part  of  the  people  were  to  elect  a  majority  of  them?  If  yosw 


VIRGINIA. 


Marshall.] 


2& 


•enators  were  for  life,  would  they  be  more  agreeable  to  you?  If  your 
president  were  not  accountable  to  you  for  his  conduct,  if  it  were  a 
constitutional  maxim,  that  he  could  do  no  wrong,  would  you  be  saf- 
«r  than  you  are  now?  If  you  can  answer,  Yes,  to  these  questions, 
then  adopt  the  British  constitution.  If  not,  then  good  as  that  go'- 
vernment  may  be,  this  is  better.  The  worthy  gentleman  who  was 
last  up,  said  the  confederacies  of  ancient  and  modern  times  were 
not  similar  to  ours,  and  that  consequently  reasons  which  applied 
against  them,  could  not  be  urged  against  it.  Do  they  not  hold  out 
one  lesson  very  useful  to  us?  However  unlike  in  other Yespects, 
they  resemble  it  in  its  total  inefficacy.  They  warn  us  to  shun  their 
calamities,  and  place  in  our  government,  those  necessary  powers, 
the  want  of  which  destroyed  them.  I  hope  we  shall  avail  ourselves 
«f  their  misfortunes,  without  experiencing  them.  There  was  some¬ 
thing  peculiar  in  one  observation  he  made.  He  said,  that  those  who 
governed  the  cantons  of  Switzerland  were  purchased  by  foreign  pow¬ 
ers,  which  was  the  cause  of  their  uneasiness  and  trouble. 

How  does  this  apply  to.  us?  If  we  adopt  such  a  government  a* 
theirs,  will  it  not  be  subject  to  the  same  inconvenience.2  Will  not 
the  same  cause  produce  the  same  effect.2  What  shall  protect  us  from 
it.2  What  is  our  security?  He  then  proceeded  to  say,  the  causes  of 
war  are  removed  from  us-^-that  we  are  separated  by  the  sea  from 
the  powers  of  Europe,  and  need  not  be  alarmed.  Sir,  the  sea  makes 
them  neighbors  to  us.  Though  an  immense  ocean  divides  us,  w@ 
may  speedily  see  them  with  us.  What  dangers  may  we  not  appre¬ 
hend  to  our  commerce.2  Does  not  our  naval  weakness  invite  an  at¬ 
tack  on  our  commerce.2  May  not  the  Algerines  seize  our  vessels? 
Cannot  they,  and  every  other  predatory  or  maritime  nation,  pillage 
our  ships  and  destroy  our  commerce,  without  subjecting  themselves 
to  any  inconvenience?  He  would,  he  said,  give  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  all  necessary  powers.  If  any  thing  be  necessary,  it  must  be 
so,  to  call  forth  the  strength  of  the  union,  when  we  may  be  attack¬ 
ed,  or  when  the  general  purposes  of  America  require  it.  The  wor¬ 
thy  gentleman  then  proceeded  to  shew*  that  our  present  exigencies 
are  greater  than  they  will  ever  be  again. 

Who  can  penetrate  into  futurity.2  How  can  any  man  pretend  to 
say,  that  our  future  exigencies  will  be  less  than  our  present.2  The 
exigencies  of  nations  have  been  generally  commensurate  to  their' 
resources.  It  would  be  the  utmost  impolicy  to  trust  to  a  mere  pos¬ 
sibility  of  not  being  attacked,  or  obliged  to  exert  the  strength  of  the 
community.  He  then  spoke  of  a  selection  of  particular  objects  by 
■congress,  which  he  says  must  necessarily  be  oppressive.  That  con¬ 
gress,  for  instance,  might  select  taxes,  and  that  all  but  land-holders 
would  escape.  Cannot  congress  regulate  the  taxes  so  as  to  be  equal 


234 


DEBATES, 


[Nicholas, 

on  all  parts  of  the  community?  Where  is  the  absurdity  of  having 
thirteen  revenues?  Will  they  clash  with,  or  injure,  each  other!  If 
not,  why  cannot  congress  make  thirteen  distinct  laws,  and  impose 
the  taxes  on  the  general  objects  of  taxation  in  each  state,  so  as 
that  all  persons  of  the  society  shall  pay  equally  as  they  ought! 

He  then  told  you,  that  your  continental  government  will  call  forth 
the  virtue  and- talents  of  America.  This  being  the  case,  will  they 
incroach  on  the  power  of  the  state  governments!  Will  our  most  vir¬ 
tuous  and  able  citizens  wantonly  attempt  to  destroy  the  liberty  of 
the  people!  Will  the  most  virtuous  act  the  most  wickedly!  I  dif¬ 
fer  in  opinion  from  the  worthy  gentleman.  1  think  the  virtue  and 
talents  of  the  members  of  the  general  government  will  tend  to  the 
security,  instead  of  the  destruction  of  our  liberty.  I  think  that  the 
power  of  direct  taxation  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  general 
government,  and  that  it  is  safe  to  grant  it.  If  this  power  be  not  ne¬ 
cessary,  and  as  safe  from  abuse  as  any  delegated  power  can  possi¬ 
bly  be,  then  I  say,  that  the  plan  before  you  is  unnecessary ;  for  it 
imports  not  what  system  we  have,  unless  it  have  the  power  of  pro¬ 
tecting  us  in  time  of  peace  and  war. 

Mr  HARRISON  then  addressed  the  chair,  but  spoke  so  low  that 
he  could  not  be  distinctly  heard.  He  observed,  that  the  accusation 
of  the  general  assembly,  with  respect  to  Josiah  Philips,  was  very 
unjust.  That  he  was  a  man,  who  by  the  laws  of  nations,  was  enti¬ 
tled  to  no  privilege  of  trial,  &c.  That  the  assembly  had  uniformly 
been  lenient  and  moderate  in  their  measures,  and  that  as  the  debates 
of  this  convention  would  probably  be  published,  he  thought  it  very 
unwarrantable  to  utter  expressions  here  which  might  induce  the 
world  to  believe  that  the  assembly  of  Virginia  had  committed  mur¬ 
der.  He  added  some  observations  on  the  plan  of  government — that 
it  certainly  would  operate  an  intringement  of  the  rights  and  liber¬ 
ties  of  the  people — that  he  was  amazed  that  gentleman  should  at¬ 
tempt  to  misrepresent  facts,  to  persuade  the  convention  to  adopt  such 
a  system ;  and  that  he  trusted  they  would  not  ratify  it  as  it  then 
stood. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  in  reply  to  Mr  Harrison,  observed, 
that  the  turpitude  of  a.- man’s  character  was  not  a  sufficient  reason 
to  deprive  him  of  his  life  without  a  trial.  That  such  a  doctrine  as 
that,  was  a  subversion  of  every  shadow  of  freemen.  That  a  fair 
trial  was  necessary  to  determine  whether  accusations  against  men’s 
characters  were  well  founded  or  not,  and  that  no  person  would  be 
safe,  were  it  once  adopted  as  a  maxim,  that  a  man  might  be  con¬ 
demned  without  a  trial.  Mr  Nicholas  then  proceeded — although 
we  have  sat  eight  days,  so  little  has  been  done,  that  we  have  hard¬ 
ly  begun  to  discuss  the  question  regularly*  The  rule  of  the  house 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


235 


to  proceed,  clause  by  clause,  has  been  violated.  Instead  of  doing 
this,  gentleman  alarm  us  by  declamations  without  reason  or  argu¬ 
ment — by  bold  assertions,  that  we  are  going  to  sacrifice  our  liber¬ 
ties.  It  is  a  fact,  known  to  many  members  within  my  hearing,  that 
several  members  have  tried  their  interest  without  doors  to  induce 
others  to  oppose  this  system.  Every  local  interest  that  could  ef¬ 
fect  their  minds,  has  been  operated  upon. 

Can  it  be  supposed,  that  gentleman  elected  for  their  ability  and 
integrity,  to  represent  the  people  of  Virginia,  in  this  convention,  to 
determine  on  this  important  question,  whether  or  not  we^hall  be 
connected  with  the  other  states  in  the  union — can  it  be  thought,  I 
say,  that  gentleman  in  a  situation  like  this,  will  be  influenced  by 
motives  like  these]  An  answer  which  has  been  given,  is,  that  if  this 
constitution  be  adopted,  the  western  countries  will  be  lost.  It  is 
better  that  a  few  countries  should  be  lost,  than  all  America.  But, 
Sir,  no  such  consequence  can  follow  from  its  adoption.  They  will 
be  much  more  secure  than  they  are  at  present.  This  constitution,- 
Sir,  will  secure  the  equal  liberty  and  happiness  of  all.  It  will  do 
immortal  honor  to  the,  gentlemen  who  formed  it.  I  shall  shew  the 
inconsistency  of  the  gentleman  who  entertained  us  so  long,  (Mr. 
Henrv.)  He  insisted  that  subsequent  amendments  would  go  to  a 
dissolution  of  the  union — that  Massachusetts  was  opposed  to  it  in 
its  present  state,  Massachusetts  has  absolutely  ratified  it;  and  has 
gone  further,  and  said,  that  such  and  such  amendments  shall  be 
proposed  by  their  representatives. 

But  such  was  the  attachment  of  that  respectable  state  to  the 
union,  that  even  at  that  early  period,  she  ratified  it  unconditionally, 
and  depended  on  the  probability  of  obtaining  amendments  hereaf¬ 
ter.  Can  this  be  a  dissolution  of  the  union]  Does  this  indicate  an 
aversion  to  the  union  on  the  part  of  that  state  ,  or,  can  an  imitation 
of  her  conduct  injure  us]  He  tells  us,  that  our  present  government 
is  strong.  How  can  that  government  be  strong,  which  depends  on 
humble  supplications  for  its  support]  Does  a  government  which  is 
dependent  for  its  existence  on  others,  and  which  is  unable  to  afford 
protection  to  the  people,  deserve  to  be  continued]  But  the  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  has  no  objections  to  see  little  storms  in  republics — 
they  may  be  useful  in  the  political,  as  well  in  the  natural  world. 
Every  thing  the  gieat  creator  has  ordained  in  the  natural  world,  is 
founded  on  consumnate  wisdom  :  but  let  him  tell  us  what  advanta¬ 
ges,  convulsions,  dissentions,  and  bloodshed,  it  will  produce  in  the 
political  world]  Can  disunion  be  the  means  of  securing  the  happi¬ 
ness  of  the  people  in  this  political  hemisphere]  The  worthy  mem¬ 
ber  has  enlarged  on  our  bill  of  rights.. 

Let  us  see  whether  his  encomiums  on  tire  bill  of  rights  be  con- 


DEBATES. 


* 

» 


$36 


[Nicholas,- 


sistent  with  his  other  arguments.  Our  declaration  of  rights  says, 
that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent.  How 
comes  the  gentleman  to  reconcile  himself~to  a  government  wherein 
there  are  a  hereditary  monarch  and  nobility'?  He  objects  to  this 
change  although  our  present  federal  system  is  totally  without  ener¬ 
gy.  He  objects  to  this  system,  because  he  says  it  will  prostrate 
your  bill  of  rights.  Does  not  the  bill  of  rights  tell  you,  that  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  community  have  an  indubitable  right  to  alter  any  go¬ 
vernment,  which  shall  be  found  inadequate  to  the  security  of  the 
public  happiness?  Does  it  not  say,  “  that  no  free  government,  or 
the  blessings  of  liberty  can  be  preserved  to  any  people,  but  by  a 
firm  adherence  to  justice,  moderation,  temperance,  frugality,  and 
virtue,  and  by  frequent  recurrence  to  fundamental  principles?”  Have 
not  the  inadequacy  of  the  present  system,  and  repeated  flagrant  vio¬ 
lations  of  justice,  and  the  other  principles  recommended  by  the  bill 
of  rights,  been  amply  proved?  As  this  plan  of  government  will 
promote  our  happiness  and  establish  justice,  will  not  its  adoption  be 
justified  by  the  very  principles  of  your  bill  of  rights? 

But  he  has  touched  on  a  string  which  will  have  great  effect.  The 
western  country  is  not  safe  if  this  plan  be  adopted.  What  do  they 
stand  in  need  of?  Do  they  want  protection  from  enemies?  The 
present  weak  government  cannot  protect  them.  But  the  exercise 
of  the  congressional  powers,  proposed  by  ibis  constitution,  will  af¬ 
ford  them  ample  security,  because  the  general  government  can  com¬ 
mand  the  whole  strength  of  the  union,  to  protect  any  particular  part. 
There  is  another  point  wherein  this  government  will  set  them  right. 
I  mean  the  western  posts.  This  is  a  subject  with  which  every  gen¬ 
tleman  here  is  acquainted.  They  have  been  withheld  from  us  since 
the  peace  by  the  British.  The  violation  of  the  treaty  on  our  part, 
authorises  this  detension  in  some  degree.  The  answer  of  the  Brit- 
ish  minister  to  our  demand  of  surrendering  the  posts,  was,  that  as 
soon  as  America  should  shew  a  disposition  to  comply  with  the 
■treaty  on  her  part,  that  Great  Britain  should  do  the  same.  By  this 
^constitution  treaties  will  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  The 
adoption  of  it  therefore  is  the  only  chance  we  have  of  getting  the 
western  posts. 

As  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  it  is  one  of  the  most  un¬ 
alienable  rights  of  the  people,  and  which  ought  to  be  relinquished  on 
no  consideration.  The  strength  of  the  western  people  is  not  ade¬ 
quate  to  its  retention  and  enjoyment.  They  can  receive  no  aid 
from  the  confederation.  This  navigation  can  only  be  secured  by 
one  of  two  ways  :  by  force  or  by  treaty.  As  to  force,  I  apprehend 
that  the  new  government  will  be  much  more  likely  to  hold  it  than 
the  old.  It  will  be  also  more  likely  to  retain  it  by  means  of  trca* 


1 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


•37 


lies ;  because,  as  it  will  be  more  powerful  and  respectable,  it  will 
be  more  feared  :  and  as  they  will  have  more  power  to  injure  Spain. 
Spain  will  be  more  inclined  to  do  them  justice,  by  yielding- it,  or  by 
giving  them  an  adequate  compensation. 

It  was  said  that  France  and  Spain  would  not  be  pleased  to  see 
the  United  States  united  in  one  great  empire.  Shall  we  remain 
feeble  and  contemptible  to  please  them1  Shall  we  reject  our  own 
interest  to  protect  theirs?  We  shall  be  more  able  to  discharge  our 
engagements.  This  maybe  agreeabje  to  them.  There aje  many 
strong  reasons  to  expect  that  the  adoption  of  this  systemTvill  be 
beneficial  to  the  back  country,  and  that  their  interest  will  be  much 
better  attended  to  under  the  new  than  under  the  old  government. 
There  are  checks  in  this  constitution  which  will  render  the  naviga¬ 
tion  of  the  Mississippi  safer  than  it  was  under  the  confederation. 
There  is  a  clause  which  in  my  opinion,  will  prohibit  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  from  relinquishing  that  navigation.  The  fifth  clause  of 
the  nip.th  section,  of  the  first  article,  provides,  “That  no  prefer¬ 
ence  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce,  or  revenue,  to 
•the  ports  of  one  state,  over  those  of  another.”  If  congress  be  ex¬ 
pressly  prohibited  to  give  preference  to  the  ports  of  one  state  over 
those  of  another,  there  is  a  strong  implication,  that  they  cannot  give 
preference  to  the  ports  of  any  foreign  nation  over  those  of  a  state. 
This  will  render  it  unconstitutional  to  give  Spain  a  preference  t® 
the  western  country  in  the  navigation  of  that  river.  They  may  say 
that  this  is  a  constrained  construction,  but  it  appears  to  me  a  ration¬ 
al.  It  would  be  a  violation  of  true  policy  to  give  such  a  prefer¬ 
ence.  It  would  be  a  departure  from  natural  construction  to  sup¬ 
pose,  that  an  advantage  withheld  from  the  states  should  be  given 
to  a  foreign  nation. 

Under  the  confederation,  congress  connot  make  a  treaty  without 
the  c  onsent  of  nine  states.  Congress,  by  the  proposed  plan,  can¬ 
not  make  a  treaty  without  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  sena¬ 
tors  present,  and  of  the  president.  Two-thirds  will  amount  to 
nine  states,  if  the  senators  from  all  the  states  be  present.  Can  it 
be  candidly  and  fairly  supposed,  that  they  will  not  all,  or  nearly 
all,  be  present  when  so  important  a  subject  as  a  treaty  is  to  be  agi¬ 
tated?  The  consent  of  the  president  is  a  very  great  security.  He 
is  elected  by  the  people  at  large.  He  will  not  have  the  local  in¬ 
terests  which  the  members  of  congress  may  have.  If  he  deviates 
from  bis  duty  he  is  responsible  to  his  constituents.  lHe  will  be  de¬ 
graded,  and  will  bring  on  his  head  the  accusation  of  the  representa¬ 
tive*  of  the  people — an  accusation  which  has  ever  been,  and  always 
vri.ll  be,  very  formidable.  He  will  be  absolutely  disqualified  to  hold 
**y  place  of  profit,  honor,  or  trust,  and  liable  to  further  punish- 


I 


i m 


DEBATES. 


{Nicholas. 

ment,  if  he  has  committed  such  high  crimes,  as  are  punishable  at 
common  law. — From  the  summit  of  honor  and  esteem,  he  will  be 
precipitated  to  the  lowest  infamy  and  disgrace.  Although  the  rep¬ 
resentatives  have  no  immediate  agency  in  treaties,  yet  from  their 
influence  in  the  government,  they  will  direct  every  thing.  They 
will  be  a  considerable  check  on  the  senate  and  president.  Those 
from  small  states  will  be  particularly  attentive,  to  prevent  a  sacri¬ 
fice  of  territory. 

The  people  of  New  England  have  lately  purchased  great  quanti¬ 
ties  of  lands  in  the  western  country.  Great  numbers  of  them  have 
moved  thither.  Every  one  has  left  his  friends,  relations  and  ac¬ 
quaintances,  behind  him.  This  will  pi  event  those  states  from  adop¬ 
ting  a  measure,  that  would  so  greatly  tend  to  the  injmy  of  their 
friends.  Has  not  Virginia,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  asserted  her 
right  to  that  navigation!  Can  she  ever  enjoy  it  under  so  feeble  a 
government  as  the  present?  This  is  one  reason  why  she  should 
assent  to  ratify  this  system?  A  strong  argument  offered  by  the  gen¬ 
tleman  last  up,  against  the  concession  of  direct  taxation,  is,  that  the 
hack  lands  and  impost  will  be  sufficient  for  all  the  exigencies  of 
government,  and  calculates  the  impost  as  a  considerable  amount. 
The  impost  will  be  affected  by  this  business.  The  navigation  of 
that  river  wll  encrease  the  impost.  Are  not  the  United  States  as 
much  interested  as  the  people  of  Kentucky,  to  retain  that  naviga¬ 
tion?  Congress  will  have  as  much  interest  in  it,  as  any  inhabitant 
of  that  country,  and  must  exert  themselves  for  it.  Kentucky  will 
have  taxes  to  pay. 

How  can  they  pay  them  without  navigation?  It  will  be  to  their 
interest  to  have  it  in  their  power  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  and 
raise  money  by  imposts.  It  will  be  to  the  interest  of  all  the  states, 
a3  it  will  increase  the  general  resources  of  the  united  community. 
Considering  Kentucky  as  an  independent  state,  she  will  under  the 
present  system,  and  without  the  navigation  of  that  river,  be  furnish¬ 
ed  with  the  articles  of  her  consumption,  through  the  medium  of 
the  importing  states.  She  will,  therefore,  be  taxed  by  every  im¬ 
porting  state.  If  the  new  constitution  takes  place,  the  amounts  of 

•  t 

duties  on  imported  articles  will  go  into  the  general  treasury,  by 
which  means  Kentucky  will  participate  an  equal  advantage  with 
-the  importing  states.  It  will  then  be  clearly  to  the  advantage  of 
the  inhabitants  of  that  country  that  it  should  take  place.  He  tells 
us,  that  he  prays  for  union.  What  kind  of  Anion?  An  union  of 
the  whole,  I  suppose,  if  it  could  be  got  on  his  terms.  If  on  such 
terms,  he  will  adopt  it.  If  not,  he  will  recur  to  partial  confederacies. 
He  will  attempt  amendments.  If  he  cannot  obtain  them — then  he 
;$sfU  choose  a  partial  confederacy!  Now  I  beg  every  gentleman  \ft 


VIRGINIA. 


239 


Nicholas.] 

this  committee,  who  would  not  sacrifice  the  union,  to  attend  to  the 
situation  in  which  they  are  about  to  place  themselves. 

I  beg  gentlemen  seriously  to  reflect  on  this  important  business. 
They  say  amendments  may  be  previously  obtained,  but  acknowl¬ 
edged  to  be  difficult.  Will  you  join  in  an  opposition  that  so  direct¬ 
ly  tends  to  disunion?  Can  any  member  here  think  of  disunion,  or 
a  partial  confederacy,  without  horror?  Yet  both  are  expressly  pre¬ 
ferred  to  union,  unless  this  system  be  amended  previously.  But, 
says  the  worthy  member,  why  should  not  previous  amendments  be 
obtained?  Will  they  not  be  agreed  to,  a h  the  eight  adopting  states 
are  friends  to  the  union?  But  what  follows?  If  they  are  so,  they 
will  agree  to  subsequent  amendments.  If  you  recommend  altera¬ 
tions  after  ratifying,  the  friendship  of  the  adopting  states  to  the 
union,  and  the  desires  of  several  of  them  to  have  amendments,  will 
lead  them  to  gratify  every  reasonable  proposal.  By  this  means  you 
secure  the  govei nment  and  union.  But  if  you  reject  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  and  say,  you  must  have  alterations  as  the  previous  condition 
of  adoption,  you  sacrifice  the  union,  and  all  the  valuable  parts  of 
it. 


% 

Can  we  trust,  says  he,  our  liberty  to  the  president — to  the  senate 
— to  the  house  of  representatives?  We  do  not  trust  our  liberty  to  a 
particular  branch:  one  branch  has  not  the  whole  power.  One 
branch  is  a  check  on  the  other.  The  representatives  have  a  control - 
%ng  power  over  the  whole.  He  then  told  us,  that  republican  bor¬ 
derers  are  not  disposed  to  quarrels.  This  controverts  the  uniform 
evidence  of  history.  I  refer  the  gentleman  to  the  history  of  Greece,. 
Were  not  the  republics  of  that  country,  which  bordered  on  one 
another,  almost  perpetually  at  war?  Their  confederated  republics, 
as  long  as  they  were  united,  wrere  continually  torn  by  domestic 
factions.  This  was  the  case  wTith  the  Amphyctions.  They  called 
to  their  assistance  the  Macedonian  monarch,  and  were  subjected 
themselves  by  that  very  prince.  This  was  the  fate  of  the  other 
Grecian  republics.  Dissent.ions  among  themselves  rendered  it  ne¬ 
cessary  for  them  to  call  for  foreign  aid,  and  this  expedient  ultimate¬ 
ly  ended  in  their  own  subjugation.  This  proves  the  absolute  ne¬ 
cessity  of  the  union. 


There  is  a  country  wrhich  affords  strong  examples,  which  may  bs 
of  great  utility  to  us  :  I  mean  Great  Britain.  England,  before  it 
was  united  to  Scotland,  was  almost  constantly  at  war  with  that  part 
of  the  island.  The  inhabitants  of  the  north  and  south  parts  of  the 
same  island  were  more  bitter  enemies  to  one,  another  than  to  the  na¬ 
tions  on  the  continent.  England  and  Scotland  were  more  bitter  en¬ 
emies  before  the  union,  than  E no-land  and  France  have  ever  been, 
before  or  since.  Their  hatred  and  animosities  were  stimulated  by 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas. 


tie  interference  of  other  nations.  Since  the  union,  both  countries 
have  enjoyed  domestic  tranquility  the  greatest  part  of  the  time,  and 
both  countries  have  been  greatly  benefitted  by  it.  This  is  a  con¬ 
vincing  proof  that  union  is  necessary  for  America,  and  that  partial 
confederacies  would  be  productive  of  endless  dissentions,  and  un¬ 
ceasing  hostilities  between  the  different  parts. 

The  gentleman  relies  much  on  the  force  of  requisitions.  I  shall 
mention  two  examples  which  will  shew  their  inutility.  They  are 
fruitless  without  the  coercion  of  arn  s.  ]f  large  states  refuse,  a 
complete  civil  war,  or  dissolution  of  the  confederacy  will  result.  If 
small  states  refuse,  they  will  be  destroyed,  or  obliged  to  comply. 
From  the  history  of  the  United  Netherlands,,  the  inutility  of  requi¬ 
sitions,  without  recurring  to  force,  may  be  proved.  The  small  pro¬ 
vinces  refused  to  comply.  Holland,  the  most  powerful,  marched 
into  their  territories  with  an  army,  and  compelled  them  to  pay. 
The  other  example,  is  from  the  New-England  confederacy.  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  the  most  wealthy  and  populous  state,  refused  to  contri¬ 
bute  her  share.  The  rest  were  enabled  to  compel  her,  and  the 
league  was  dissolved.  Attend  to  a  resolution  of  the  assembly  of 
Virginia  in  the  year  1784. —  * 

[Here  Mr  Nicholas  read  a  resolution  of  that  year,  to  enable  con¬ 
gress  to  compel  a  compliance  with  re,quisiti6ns.] 

I  am  sure  that  the  gentleman  recognizes  his  child.  Is  not  this 
a  conclusive  evidence  of  the  utter  inefficacv  of  requisitions!  This 
expedient  of  coercion  is  a  dreadful  alternative.  It  confounds  those 
who  are  innocent,  and  willing  to  pay,  with  those  who  refuse.  How 
are  they  to  be  discriminated,  if  a  state  is  to  be  attacked  for  the  re¬ 
fusal  of  its  legislature!  I  am  sure  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  com- 
mittee  who  does  not  see  the  impolicy  and  danger  of  such  an  expe¬ 
dient. 

We  are  next  terrified  with  the  thought  of  excises.  In  some 
•ountries  excises  are  terrible.  In  others,  they  are  not  only  harm¬ 
less,  but  useful.  In  our  sister  states  they  are  excised  without  any 
inconvenience.  They  are  a  kind  of  tax  on  manufactures.  Our 
manufactures  are  few  in  proportion  to  those  of  other  states.  We 
may  be  assured,  that  congress  shall  make  such  regulations  as  will 
make  excises  convenient  and  easy  -for  the  people. 

Another  argument  made  use  of,  is,  that  ours  is  the  largest  state, 
and  must  pay  in  proportion  to  the  other  states.  How  does  that  ap- 
•ai!  The  proportion  of  taxes  are  fixed  by  the  number  of  inhabi¬ 
tants,  and  not  regulated  by  the  extent  of  territory,  or  fertility  of 
»»il.  if  we  be  wealthier  in  proportion,  than  other  states,  it  will  fall 
lighter  upon  us  than  upon  poorer  state*.  They  must  fix  the  taxe* 


■Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


241 


•so  that  the  pooiest  states  can  pay,  and  Virginia  being  richer  will 
bear  it  easier. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  the  first  collections  are  to  go 
to  congress,  and  that  the  state 'legislatures  must  bear  all  deficien¬ 
cies.  How  does  this  appear"?  Does  he  prove  it?  Nothing  of  it 
appears  in  the  plan  itself.  The  congress  and  the  state' legislatures 
vhave  concurrent  jurisdictions  in  laying  and  collecting  taxes.  There 
is  no  rule  that  shews  that  congress  -Shall  have'the  first  collections. 

Each  is  independent  of  the  other. 

Another  argument  against  this  disingenuous  construction  iVdrawn 

from  that  clause  which  regulates  representation,  which  is  conclu¬ 
sive  from  the  words  themselves:  “  Representatives  and  direct 
taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  states  which  may  be 
included  within  this  union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers.” 
Each  state  will  know,  from  its  population,  its  proportion  of  any 
general  tax.  As  it  was  justly  observed  by  the  gentleman  over  the 
way,  (Mr.  Randolph)  they  cannot  possibly  exceed  that  proportion  : 
they  are  limited  and  restrained  expressly 'to  it.  The  state  legisla¬ 
tures  have  no  check  of  this  kind.  Their  power  is  uncontrolled. 
This  excludes  the  'danger  of  interference.  Each  collects  its  own 
taxes,  and  bears  its  own  deficiencies  ;  and  officers  are  accountable 
to  each  government  or  the  different  collections.  I  deny,  on  my 
part,  what  he  says  with  respect  to  the  general  welfare.  He  tells 
you,  that  under  pretence  of  providing  for -the  general  welfare,  that 
may  lay  the  most  enormous  taxes.  There  is  nothing  in  the  clause 
which  warrants  this  suggestion. 

It  provides,  “  that  congress  shall  have  the  power  to  lay  and  col¬ 
lect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises;  to  pay  the  debts,  and 
provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  United 
States.”  The  debts  of  the  union  ought  to  be  paid.  Ought  not  the 
common  defence  to  be  provided  for?  .  Is  fit  mot  necessary  to  provide 
for  the  general  welfare?  It  has  been  fully  proved,  that  this  power 
could  not  be  given  to  another  body.  The  amounts  to  be  raised  are 
confined  to  these  purposes  solely.  "Will  oppressive  burthens  be 
warranted  by  this  clause?  They  are  not  to  raise  money  for  any 
other  purpose.  It  is  a  power  which  is  drawn  from  his  favorite  con¬ 
federation,  the  eighth  article  of  which  provides,  “  That  all  charges 
of  war,  and  all  other  expenses  that  shall  be  incurred  for  the  common 
defence  or  general  welfare,  and  allowed  by  the  United  States,  in 
congress  assembled,  shall  be  defrayed  out  of  a  common  treasury 
which  shall  be  supplied  by  the  several  states,  in  proportion  to  the 
value  of  all  lands  within  each  state,  granted  to,  or -surveyed  for  any 
person,  as  such  land,  and  the  building  and  improvement  thereon 
shall  be  estimated,  according  to  such  mode  as  the  United  States,  ia 

.congress  assembled,  shall,  from  time  to  time  direct  and  appoint. 
jol.  3.  16 


242 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas'- 


The  taxes  for  paying  that  proportion  shall  be  laid  and  levied  by 
the  authority  and  direction  of  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states* 
within  the  time  agreed  upon  by  the  United  States  in  congress  as¬ 
sembled.”  Now,  Sir,  by  a  comparison  of  this  article,  with  th® 
clause  in  the  constitution,  we  shall  find  them  lo  be  nearly  the  same. 
The  common  defence  and  general  welfare  are  the  objects  expressly 
mentioned  to  be  provided  for,  in  both  systems.  The  power  in  the 
confederation  to  secure  and  provide  for  these  objects  was  constitu¬ 
tionally  unlimited.  The  requisitions  of  congress  are  binding  on  the 
states,  though  from  the  imbecility  of  their  nature  they  cannot  be  en¬ 
forced.  The  same  power  is  intended  by  the  constitution.  The  only 
difference  between  them  is,  that  congress  is  by  this  plan  to  impose 
the  taxes  on  the  people,  whereas,  by  the  confederation,  they  are  laid 
by  the  states.  The  amount  to  be  raised,  and  the  power  given  to  raise 
it  is  the  same  in  principle.  The  mode  of  raising  is  only  different* 
and  this  difference  is  founded  on  the  necessity  of  giving  the  go¬ 
vernment.  that  energy,  without  which,  it  cannot  exist.  The  power 
has  not  been  reprobated  in  the  confederation.  It  ought  not  to  bo 
blamed  in  the  proposed  plan  of  government. 

The  gentleman  has  adverted  to  what  he  calls  the  sweeping  clause, 
&c.  and  represents  it,  as  replete  with  great  dangers.  This  dreaded 
clause  runs  in  the  following  words.  “To  make  all  laws  which 
shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  forego¬ 
ing  powers  ;  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  constitution  in  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department  or  officer 
thereof.”  The  committee  will  perceive,  that  the  constitution  had 
enumerated  all  the  powers  which  the  general  government  should 
have;  but  did  not  say  how  they  were  to  be  exercised.  It  therefore 
in  this  clause  tells  how  they  shall  be  exercised.  Does  this  give 
any  new  power!  I  say  not.  Suppose  it  had  been  inserted  at  the 
end  of  every  power,  that  they  should  have  power  to  make  laws  to 
carry  that  power  into  execution  :  would  this  have  increased  their 
powers1  If  therefore,  it  could  not  have  increased  their  powers,  if 
placed  at  the  end  of  each  power,  it  cannot  increase  them  at  the  end 
of  all.  This  clause  only  enables  them  to  carry  into  execution  tho 
powers  given  to  them,  but  gives  them  no  additional  power. 

But  it  is  objected  to  for  want  of  a  bill  of  rights,  It  is  a  principle 
universally  agreed  upon,  that  all  powers  not  given  arc  retained. — 
Where  by  the  constitution,  the  general  government  has  general  pow¬ 
ers,  for  any  purpose,  its  powers  are  absolute.  Where  it  has  powers 
with  some  exceptions,  they  are  absolute,  only  as  to  those  excep¬ 
tions.  In  either  case,  the  people  retain  what  is  not  conferred  on  tho 
Apncia  govern  in ‘uu,  as  it  is  by  their  Positive  grant  that  it  h  ss 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


243 


of  its  powers.  In  England,  in  all  disputes  between  the  king  and 
people,  recurrence  is  had  to  the  enumerated  rights  of  the  people  to 
determine.  Are  the  rights  in  dispute  secured — are  they  included  in 
Magna  Charta,  Bill  of  Rights,  &c.!  If  not,  they  are,  generally 
speaking,  within  the  king’s  prerogative.  In  disputes  between  con¬ 
gress  and  the  people,  the  reverse  of  the  proposition  holds.  Is  the 
disputed  right  enumerated!  If  not,  congress  cannot  meddle  with 
it. 

Which  is  the  most  safe!  The  people  of  America  know  wW  they 
have  relinquished  for  certain  purposes.  They  also  know  that  they 
retain  every  thing  else,  and  have  a  right  to  resume  what  they  have 
given  up,  if  it  be  perverted  from  its  intended  object.  The  king’s 
prerogative  is  general,  with  certain  exceptions.  The  people  are, 
therefore,  less  secure  than  'we  are.  Magna  Charta,  Bill  of  Rights, 
&c.  secure  their  liberty.  Our  constitution  itself  contains  an  English 
Bill  of  Rights.  The  English  Bill  of  Rights  declares,  that  parlia¬ 
ments  shall  be  held  frequently.  Our  constitution  says,  that  congress 
shall  sit  annually.  The  English  declaration  of  rights  provides,  that 
no  laws  shall  be  suspended.  The  constitution  provides,  that  no 
laws  shall  be  suspended,  except  one,  and  that  in  time  of  rebellion  or 
invasion,  which  is  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The  declaration  of 
rights  says,  that  there  should  be  no  army  in  time  of  peace  without 
the  consent  of  parliament.  Here  we  cannot  have  an  army  even  in 
time  of  war,  with  the  approbation  of  our  representatives  for  more 
than  two  years. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  secured.  What  secures  it  in  England! 
is  it  secured  by  magna  charta,  the  declaration  of  rights  or  by  any 
other  express  provision!  It  is  not.  They  have  no  express  security 
for  the  liberty  of  the  press.  They  have  a  reliance  on  parliament  for 
its  protection  and  security.  In  the  time  of  king  William,  there  pas¬ 
sed  an  act  for  licensing  the  press.  That  was  repealed.  Since  that 
time  it  has  been  looked  upon  as  safe.  The  people  have  depended 
on  their  representatives.  They  will  not  consent  to  pass  an  act  to 
infringe  it  because  such  an  act  would  irritate  the  nation.  It  is  equal¬ 
ly  secure  with  us.  As  to  the  trial  by  jury,  consider  in  what  situa¬ 
tion  it  is  by  the  state  constitution.  It  is  not  on  a  better  footing.  It  is 
by  implication  under  the  control  of  the  legislature;  because  it  has 
left  particular  cases  to  be  decided  by  the  legislature.  Here  it  is  se¬ 
cured  in  criminal  cases,  and  left  to  the  legislatures  in  civil  cases. 
One  instance  will  prove  the  evil  tendency  of  fixing  it  in  the  consti¬ 
tution.  It  will  extend  to  all  cases.  Causes  in  chancery,  which, 
strictly  speaking,  never  are,  nor  can  be  well  tried  by  a  jury,  would 
then  be  tried  by  that  mode,  and  cculd  not  be  altered,  though  found, 

I  1  t  •'  5  V r' :  V  n !  It! . 


DEBATES. 


244 


[Madison.- 


But  taxes  are  to  be  increased,  we  are  told.  I  think  they  will" 
not.  I  am  clearly  of  opinion,  that  the  deduction  in  the  civil  list  of 
the  states,  will  be  equal  to  the  increase  of  that  of  the  general  go¬ 
vernment.  Then  the  increase  ot  custom-house  officers  is  dreaded, 
The  present  custom-house  officers  will  be  sufficient  in  the  hands  of 
congress.  So  that  as  much  as  economy  will  take  place,  so  far  the 
revenues  will  be  increased.  Mr  Nicholas  concluded  by  making  a 
few  observations  on  the  general  structure  of  the  government,  and  its 
probable  happy  operation.  He  said  that  it  was  a  government  calcu¬ 
lated  to  suit  almost  any  extent  of  territory.  He  then  quoted  the 
opinion  of  the  celebrated  Montesquieu,  from  vol.  1st,  book  ix,  where 
that  writer  speaks  of  a  confederate  republic  as  the  only  safe  means 
of  extending  the  sphere  of  a  republican  government  to  any  consid¬ 
erable  degree. 

Wednesday,  June  11,  1788. 

[The  first  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.} 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  it  was  my  purpose  to  resume 
befoie  now,  what  I  had  left  unfinished,  concerning  the  necessity  of 
a  radical  change  of  our  system.  The  intermission  which  has  taken 
place  discontinued  the  progress  of  the  argument,  and  has  given  op¬ 
portunity  to  others  to  advance  arguments  on  different  parts  of  the 
plan.  I  hope  we  shall  steer  our  course  iu  a  different  manner  from 
what  we  have  hitherto  done.  1  presume  that  vague  discourses  and 
mere  sports  of  fancy,  not  relative  to  the  subject  at  all,  are  very  im¬ 
proper  on  this  interesting  occasion.  I  hope  these  will  be  no  longer 
attempted,  but  that  we  shall  come  to  the  point.  I  trust  we  shall  not 
go  out  of  order,  but  confine  ourselves  to  the  clause  under  considera¬ 
tion.  I  beg  gentlemen  would  observe  this  rule.  I  shall  endeavor 
not  to  depart  from  it  myself. 

The  subject  ot  direct  taxation  is  perhaps  one  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  that  can  possibly  engage  our  attention,  or  that  can  be  involved 
in  the  discussion  of  this  question.  If  it  be  to  be  judged  by  the  com¬ 
ments  made  upon  it,  by  the  opposers  and  favorers  of  the  proposed 
system,  it  requires  a  most  clear  and  critical  investigation.  The  ob¬ 
jections  against  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  comprehend  them,  are  founded  upon  the 
supposition  of  its  being  unnecessary,  impracticable,  unsafe  and  ac¬ 
cumulative  of  expense.  I  shall  therefore  consider,  1st,  how  far  it 
may  be  necessary  ;  2d,  how  far  it  may  be  practicable  ;  3dly,  how  far 
it  may  be  safe,  as  well  with  respect  to  the  public  liberty  at  large,  as 
to  the  state  legislatures  ;  and  4thly,  with  respect  to  economy.  First 
then,  is  it  necessary?  I  must  acknowledge  that  I  concur  in  opinion 

with  those  gentlemen  w’ho  told  you  that  this  branch  of  levenue  was 
•  essential  to  the  salvation  of  the  union.  It  appears  to  me  necessary. 


VIRGINIA. 


245 


Madison.] 

In  order  to  secure  that  punctuality  which  is  necessary  in  revenue 
matters.  Without  punctuality  individuals  will  give  it  no  confidence, 
without  which  it  cannot  get  resources.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  con¬ 
sider  the  situation  of  this  country,  if  unhappily  the  government 
were  to  be  deprived  of  this  power.  Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  one  of  those  powers  which  may  be  unfriendly  to  us,  should  take 
advantage  of  our  weakness,  which  they  will  be  more  ready  to  do 
when  they  know  the  want  of  this  resource  in  our  government. 
Suppose  it  should  attack  us,  what  forces  could  we  oppc^to  it? 
Could  we  find  safety  in  such  forces  as  we  could  call  out!  Could 
we  call  forth  a  sufficient  number,  either  by  draughts,  or  any  other 
way,  to  repel  a  powerful  enemy!  The  inability  of  the  government 
to  raise  and  support  regular  troops,  would  compel  us  to  depend  on 
militia. 

It  would  be  then  necessary  to  give  this  power  to  the  government, 
or  run  the  risk  of  national  annihilation.  It  is  my  firm  belief,  that  if 
a  hostile  attack  were  made  this  moment  on  the  United  States,  it 
would  flash  conviction  on  the  minds  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  necessity  of  vesting  the  government  with  this  power, 
which  alone  can  enable  it  to  protect  the  community.  I  do  not  wish 
to  frighten  the  members  into  a  concession  of  this  power,  but  to  bring 
to  their  minds  those  considerations  which  demonstrate  its  necessity. 
If  we  were  secured  from  the  possibility,  or  probability  of  danger, 
it  might  be  unnecessary.  I  shall  not  review  that  concourse  of  dan¬ 
gers  which  may  probably  arise  at  remote  periods  of  futurity,  nor 
all  those  which  have  immediately  to  apprehend,  for  this  would  lead 
me  beyond  the  bounds  which  I  prescribed  myself.  But  I  will  men¬ 
tion  one  single  consideration,  drawn  from  fact  itself.  I  hope  to 
have  your  attention. 

By  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  his  most  Christian 
majesty,  among  other  things  it  is  stipulated,  that  the  great  principle 
on  which  the  armed  neutrality  in  Europe  was  founded,  should  pre¬ 
vail  in  case  of  future  wars.  The  principle  is  this,  that  free  ships 
shall  make  free  goods,  and  that  vessels  and  goods  shall  be  both 
free  from  condemnation.  Great  Britain  did  not  recognize  it.  While 
all  Europe  was  against  her,  she  held  out  without  acting  to  it.  It 
has  been  considered  for  sometime  past,  that  the  flames  of  war  al¬ 
ready  kindled,  would  spread,  and  that  France  and  England  were 
likely  to  draw  those  swords  which  were  so  recently  put  up.  This  is 
judged  probable.  We  should  not  be  surprised  in  a  short  time,  to 
consider  ourselves  as  a  neuteral  nation — France  on  one  side,  and 
Great  Britain  on  the  other.  What  is  the  situation  of  America!  She 
Is  remote  from  Europe,  and  ought  not  to  engage  in  her  politics  or 
wars.  The  American  vessels,  if  they  can  do  it  with  advantage, 


DEBATES. 


246 


[Madisoh* 


may  carry  on  the  commerce  of  the  contending  nations*  It  is  a  source 
of  wealth  which  we  ought  not  to  deny  to  our  citizens.  But,  Sir,  is 
there  not  infinite  danger,  that  in  despite  of  all  our  caution  we  shall 
be  drawn  into  the  war?  If  American  vessels  have  French  property 
on  board,  Great  Britain  will  seize  them.  By  this  means  we  shall 
be  obliged  to  relinquish  the  advantage  of  a  neutral  nation,  or  be  en- 
gaged  in  a  war. 

A  neutral  nation  ought  to  be  respectable,  or  else  it  will  be  insult¬ 
ed  and  attacked.  America  in  her  present  impotent  situation  would 
run  the  risk  of  being  drawn  in  as  a  party  in  the  war,  and  lose  the 
advantage  of  being  neutral.  Should  it  happen  that  the  British  fleet 
should  be  superior,  have  we  not  reason  to  conclude,  from  the  spirit 
displayed  by  that  nation  to  us  and  to  all  the  world,  that  we  should 
be  insulted  in  our  own  ports,  and  our  vessels  seized?  But  if  we  be 
in  a  respectable  situation — if  it  be  known  that  our  government  can 
■command  the  whole  resources  of  the  union,  we  shall  be  suffered  to 
enjoy  the  great  advatages  of  carrying  on  the  commerce  of  the  nations 
at  war:  for  none  of  them  would  be  willing  to  add  us  to  the  number 
of  their  enemies.  I  shall  say  no  more  on  this  point,  there  being 
others  which  merit  your  consideration. 

The  expedient  proposed  by  the  gentlemen  opposed  to  this  clause. 
Is,  that  requisitions  shall  be  made,  and  if  not  complied  with  in  a 
certain  time,  that  then  taxation  shall  be  recurred  to.  1 1  am  clearly 
convinced, that  whenever  requisitions  shall  be  made,  they  will  disap¬ 
point  those  who  put  their  trust  in  them.  One  reason  to  prevent  the 
concurrent  exertions  of  all  the  states,  will  arise  from  the  suspicion, 
in  some  states,  of  delinquency  in  others.  States  will  be  governed  by 
the  motives  that  actuate  individuals. 

When  a  tax  is  in  operation  in  a  particular  state,  every  citizen,  if 
he  knows  of  the  energy  of  the  laws  to  enforce  payment,  and  that 
every  other  citizen  is  performing  his  duty,  will  cheerfully  discharge 
his  duty;  but  were  it  known  that  the  citizens  of  cne  district  were  not 
performing  their  duty,  and  that  it  was  left  to  the  policy  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  make  them  come  up  with  it,  the  other  districts  would  be 
very  supine  and  careless  in  making  provisions  for  payment.  Our 
own  experience  makes  the  illustration  more  natural.  If  requisitions 
be  made  on  thirteen  different  states,  when  one  deliberates  on  the 
subject,  she  will  know  that  all  the  rest  will  deliberate  upon  it  also. 
This,  Sir,  has  been  a  principal  cause  ot  the  inefficacy  of  requisitions 
heretofore,  and  will  hereafter  produce  the  same  evil.  If  the  legisla¬ 
tures  are  to  deliberate  on  this  subject,  (and  the  honorable  gentleman 
opposed  to  this  clause,  thinks  their  deliberation  necessary)  is  it  not 
presumable,  that  they  will  consider  peculiar  local  circumstances? 
In  the  general  council,  on  the  contrary,  the  sense  of  all  America 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


247 


would  be  drawn  to  a  single  point.  The  collective  interest  of  the 
union  at  large,  will  be  known  and  pursued.  No  local  views 
will  be  permitted  to  operate  against  the  general  welfare.  But  when 
propositions  would  come  before  a  particular  state,  there  is  every  rea¬ 
son  to  believe,  that  qualifications  of  the  requisitions  would  be  propo¬ 
sed — compliance  might  be  promised,  and  some  instant  remittances 
might  be  made.  This  will  cause  delays,  which  in  the  first  instance 
will  produce  disappointment,  This  also  will  make  failures  every 
where  else.  This  I  hope  will  be  considered  with  the  attention  it 
deserves.  The  public  creditors  will  be  disappointed,  and  more 
pressing.  Requisitions  will  be  made  for  purposes  equally  pervading 
all  America;  but  the  exertions  to  make  compliances,  will  probably 
be  not  uniform  in  the  states.  If  requisitions  be  made  for  future  occa¬ 
sions,  for  putting  the  states  in  a  state  of  military  defence,  or  to  repel 
an  invasion,  will  the  exertions  be  uniform  and  equal  in  all  the  states! 
Some  parts  of  the  United  States  are  moie  exposed  than  others. 
Will  the  least  exposed  states  exert  themselves  equally!  We  know 
that  the  most  exposed  will  be  more  immediately  interested,  and  will 
make  less  sacrifices  in  making  exertions.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  con¬ 
sider  that  this  argument  will  apply  with  most  effect  to  the  states 
which  are  most  defenceless  and  exposed.  The  southern  states  are 
most  exposed,  whether  we  consider  their  situation,  or  the  smallness 
of  their  population.  And  there  are  other  circumstances  which  render 
them  still  more  vulnerable,  which  do  not  apply  to  the  northern  states. 
They  are  therefore  more  interested  in  givingthe  government  a  pow¬ 
er  to  command  the  whole  strength  of  the  union  in  cases  of  emergen¬ 
cy.  Do  not  gentlemen  conceive  this  mode  of  obtaining  supplies 
from  the  states,  will  keep  alive  animosities  between  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  and  particular  states!  Where  the  chances  of  failures  are 
-so  numerous  as  thirteen,  by  the  thirteen  states,  disappointment  in 
the  first  place,  and  consequent  animosity  must  inevitably  take 
place. 

Let  us  consider  the  alternatives  proposed  by  gentlemen,  instead 
of  the  power  of  laying  direct  taxes.  After  the  states  shall  have  re” 
fused  to  comply,  weigh  the  consequences  of  the  exercise  ofthispow' 
*er  by  congress.  When  it  comes  in  the  form  of  a  punishment,  great 
clamours  will  be  raised  among  the  people  against  the  government  * 
hatred  will  be  excited  against  it.  It  will  be  considered  as  an  iarncT 
minious  stigma  on  the  state.  It  will  be  considered  at  least  in  this 
light  by  the  state  where  the  failure  is  made,  and  these  sentiments  will 
no  doubt  be  diffused  through  the  other  states.  Now  let  us  consider 
the  effect,  if  collectors  are  sent  where  the  state  governments  refuse 
to  comply  with  requisitions.  It  is  too  much  the  disposition  of  man¬ 
kind  not’to  stop  at  one  violation  of  duty.  I  conceive  that  every  re. 


248  DEBATES.  [Madisonv- 

quisition  that  will  be'  made  on  my  part  of  America,  will  kindle  a  con¬ 
tention  between  the  delinquent  member,  and  the  general  government. 
Is  there  no  reason  to  suppose  divisions  in  the  government  (for  seldom 
does  any  thing  pass  with  unanimity)  on  the  subject  of  requisitions? 
The  parts  least  exposed  will  oppose  those  measures  which  may  be 
adopted  for  the  defence  of  the  weakest  parts.  Is  there  no  reason  to 
presume,  that  the  representatives  from  the  delinquent  state  will  be 
more  likely  to  foster  disobedience  to  the  requisitions- of  the  govern¬ 
ment,  than  study  to  reeommend  them  to  the  public? 

There  is  in  my  opinion,  another  point  of  view  in  which  this  alter¬ 
native  will  produce  great  evil;  1  will  suppose,  what  is  very  prob¬ 
able,  that  partial  compliances  will  be  made.  A  difficulty  here  arises 
which-  fully  demonstrates  its  impolicy.  If  a  part  be  paid,  and  the  rest 
withheld,  how  is  the  general  government  to  proceed?  They  are  to 
impose  a  tax,  but  how  shall  it  be  done  in  this  case?  Are  they  to 
impose  it  by-  way  of  punishment,  on  those  who  have  paid,  as  well  as- 
those  who  have  not?  All  these  considerations  taken  into  view  (for 
they  are  not  visionary  or  fanciful  speculations)  will,  perhaps,  produce 
this  consequence.  The  general  government  to  avoid  these  disap¬ 
pointments  which  I  first  described,  and  to  avoid  the  contentions  and 
embarassments  which  I  last  described,  will  in  all  probability,  throw 
the  public  burdens  on  those  branches  of  revenue  which  will  be  more 
in  their  power.  They  will  be  continually  necessitated  to  augment 
the  imposts.  If  we  throw  a  disproportion  of  the  burdens  on  that 
side,  shall  we  not  discourage  commerce;  and  suffer  many  political' 
evils?  Shall  we  not  increase  that  disproportion  on  the  southern  states., 
which  for  sometime  will  operate  against  us?.  The  southern  states, 
from  having  fewer  manufactures,  will  import  and  consume  more... 
They  will  therefore  pay  more  of  the  imposts.  The  more  commerce 
is.  burdened,  the  more  the  disproportion,  will  operate  against  them. 
If  direct  taxation  be  mixed  with  other  taxes,  it  will  be  in  the  powe 
of  the  general  government  to  lessen  that  inequality.  But  this  in, 
equality  will  be  increased  to  the  utmost  extent,  if  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  have  not  this  power. 

There  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  this  subject  affords  us 
instruction..  The  imports  will  decrease  in  time  of  war.  The  hon¬ 
orable  gentleman  who  spoke  yesterday,. said,  that  the  imposts  would 
be  so  productive,  that  there  would  be  no  occasion  of  laying  taxes. 

I  will  submit  two  observations  to  him  and  the  committee.  First : 
in  time  of  war  the  imposts  will  be  less,  and  as  I  hope  we  are  con¬ 
sidering  a  government  for  a  perpetual  duration,  we  ought  to  provide 
for  every  future  contingency.  At  present  our  importations  bear  a  full 
proportion  to  the  full  amount  of  our  sales,  and  to  the  number  cf  our 
inhabitants  ;  but  when  we  have  inhabitants  enough,  ou.r  imposts  will. 


Madison.]; 


VIRGINIA..  24# 

*.  # 

decrease  ;  and  as  the  national  demands  will  increase  with  our  popu¬ 
lation,  our  resources  will  increase  as  our  wants  increase.  The  oth 
er  consideration  which  I  will  submit  on  this  part  of  the  subject  is 
this  : — I  believe  that  it  will  be  found  in  practice,  that  those  who  fix 
the  public  burdens,  will  feel  a  greater  degree  of  responsibility  when 
they  are  to  impose  them,  on  the  citizens  immediately,  than  if  they 
were  to  say  what  sum  should  be  paid  by  the  states..  If,  they  exceed 
the  limits  of  propriety,  universal  discontent  and  clamour  will  arise. 
Let  us  suppose  they  were  to  collect  the  taxes  from-  the  citizens  of 
America — would  they  not  consider  their  circumstances'!  Would 
they  not  attentively  consider  what  could  be  done  by  the  citizens  at 
large!  Wer.e  they  to  exceed  in  their  demands,  what  were  reasona¬ 
ble  burdens,  the  people  would  impute  it  to  the  right  source,  and  look 
on  the  im posers  as  odious. 

When  I  consider  the  nature  of  the  various  objections  brought 
against  this  clause;  I  should  be  led  to  think,  that  the  difficulties  were 
such,  that  gentlemen  would  not  be  able  to  get  over,  them,  and  that 
the  power,  as  defined  in  the  plan  of  the  convention,  was  impractica¬ 
ble.  I  shall  trouble  them  with  a  few  observations  on  that  point: 

It  has  been  said  that  ten  men  deputed  from  this  state,  and  others 
in  proportion  from  other  states,  will  not  be  able  to  adjust  direct  tax¬ 
es,  so  as  to  accommodate  the  various  citizens  in  thirteen  states. 

I  confess  Ido  not  see  the  force  of  this  observation.  Could  not 
ten  intelligent  men,  chosen  from  ten  districts  from  this  state,  lay  di¬ 
rect  taxes  on  a  few  objects  in  the  most  judicious  manner!  It  is  to 
be  conceived,  that  they  would  be  acquainted  with  the  situation  of 
different  citizens  of  this  country.  Can,  any  one  divide'  this  state  into 
ten  districts  so  as  not  to  contain  men  of  sufficient  information!’ 
Could  not  one  man  of  knowledge  be  found  in  a  district!  When, 
thus  selected,  will  they  not  be  able  to  carry  t/heir  knowledge  into  the 
general  council!  I  may  say  with  great  propriety,  that  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  our  own  legislature  demonstrate  the  competency  of  congress 
to  lay  taxes  wisely.  O.ur  assembly  consists  of  considerably  more 
than  a  hundred  ;  yet  from  the  nature  of  the  business,  it  devolves  on 
a  much  smaller  number.  It  is  through  their  sanction,  approved  of 
by  all  the  others.  It  will  be  found  that  there  are  seldom  more  than 
ten  men  who  rise  to  high  information  on  this  subject..  Our  federal 
representatives,  as  has-been  said  by  the  gentleman  (Mr.  Marshall) 
who  entered  into  the  subject  with  a  great  deal  of  ability,  wil>]  get 
information  from  the  state  governments.  They  will  be  pesfostly 
w«ll  informed  of  the  circumstances  of  the  people  of  the  different 
states,  and  the  mode  of  taxation  that  would  he  most  convenient  for 
them,  from  the  laws  of  the  states.  In  laying  taxes,  they  may  evea, 
rofer  to  the  state  system  of  taxation.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten.,  that 


DEBATES. 


250 


[Madisok 


there  is  a  probability,  that  that  ignorance  which  is  complained  of  in 
some  parts  of  America,  will  be  continually  diminishing.  Let  ua 
compare  the  degree  of  knowledge  which  the  people  had  in  time  past 
to  their  present  information.  Does  not  our  own  experience  teach  us, 
that  the  people  are  better  informed  than  they  were  a  few  years  ago! 
The  citizen  of  Georgia  knows  more  now  of  the  affairs  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  than  he  did  before  the  revolution,  of  those  of  South  Carolina. 
When  the  representatives  from  the  different  states  are  collected  to¬ 
gether,  to  consider  this  subject,  they  will  interchange  their  know¬ 
ledge  with  one  another,  and  will  have  the  laws  of  each  state  on  the 
table.  Besides  this,  the  intercourse  of  the  states  will  be  continual¬ 
ly  increasing.  It  is  now  much  greater  than  before  the  revolution. 
My  honorable  friend, 'over  the  way  (Mr.  Monroe)  yesterday,  seemed 
to  conceive,  as  an  insurperable  objection,  that  if  land  were  made 
the  particular  object  of  taxation,  it  would  be  unjust,  as  it  would  ex¬ 
onerate  the  commercial  part  of  the  community — that  if  it  were  laid 
on  trade,  it  would  be  unjust  in  discharging  the  landholders;  and 
that  any  exclusive  selection  would  be  unequal  and  unfair.  If  the 
general  government  were  tied  down  to  one  object,  I  confess  the  ob¬ 
jection  would  have  some  force  in  it.  But  if  this  be  not  the  case,  it 
-can  have  no  weight.  If  it  should  have  a  general  power  of  taxation, 
dhey  could  select  the  most  proper  objects,  and  distribute  the  taxes 
in  such  a  manner,  as  that  they  should  fall  in  a  due  degree  on  every 
member  of  the  community,  They  will  be  limited  to  fix  the  propor¬ 
tion  of  each  state,  and  they  must  raise  it  in  the  most  convenient  and 
satisfactory  manner  to  the  public. 

The  honorable  member  considered  it  as  another  insuperable  ob¬ 
jection,  that  uniform  laws  could  not  be  made  for  thirteen  states,  and 
that  dissonance  would  produce  inconvenience  and  oppression.  Per¬ 
haps  it  may  not  be  found,  on  due  enquiry,  to  be  so  impracticable  as 
he -supposes.  But  were  it  so,  where  is  the  evil  of  different  states, 
to  raise  money  for  the  general  government!  Where  is  the  evil  of 
such  laws!  There  are  instances  in  other  countries,  of  different  laws 
operating  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  without  producing  any 
kind  of  opposition.  The  revenue  laws  are  different  in  England  and 
Scotland  in  several  respects.  Their  laws  relating  to  customs  exci¬ 
ses  and  trade,  are  similar;  but  those  respecting  direct  taxation  are 
dissimilar.  There  is  aland  tax  in  England,  and  a  land  tax  in  Scot- 
land,  but  the  laws  concerning  them  are  not  the  same.  It  is  much 
heavier  in  proportion  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  The  mode  of 
collection  is  different — yet  this  is  not  productive  of  any  national  in¬ 
convenience.  Were  we  to  conclude  from  the  objections  against  the 
proposed  plan,  this  dissimilarity,  in  that  point  alone,  would  have 
involved  those  kingdoms  in  difficulties.  In  England  itself,  there  is 


Virginia. 


$[jLt>iaON.] 


a  variety  of  different  laws  operating  differently  in  different  places. 

I  will  make  another  observation  on  the  objection  of  my  honorable 
friend.  He  seemed  to  conclude,  that  concurrent  collections  under 
different  authorities,  were  not  reducible  to  practice.  I  agree  that 
were  they  independent  of  the  people,  the  argument  would  be  good. 
But  they  must  serve  one  common  master.  They  must  act  in  con¬ 
cert,  or  the  defaulting  party  must  bring  on  itself  the  resentment  of 
the  people.  If  the  general  government  be  so  constructed,  that  it 
will  not  dare  to  impose  such  burdens,  as  will  distress  the  people, 
where  is  the  evil  of  its  having  a  power  ot  taxation  concurrent  with 
the  states?  The  people  would  not  support  it,  were  it  to  impose  op¬ 
pressive  burdens.  Let  me  make  one  more  comparison  of  the  state 
governments,  to  this  plan.  Do  not  the  states  impose  taxes  for  lo¬ 
cal  purposes?  Does  the  concurrent  collection  of  taxes,  imposed  by 
the  legislatures  for  general  purposes,  and  of  levies  laid  by  the  coun¬ 
ties  for  parochial  and  county  purposes,  produce  any  inconvenience 
or  oppression?  The  collection  of  these  taxes  is  perfectly  practica¬ 
ble,  and  consistent  with  the  views  of  both  parties.  The  people  at 
large  are  the  common  superior  of  the  state  governments,  and  the  gen¬ 
eral  government.  It  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  that  they  will  avoid 
interferences  for  two  causes — to  avoid  public  oppression,  and  to  ren¬ 
der  the  collections  more  productive.  I  conceive  they  will  be  more 
likely  to  produce  disputes,  in  rendering  it  convenient  for  the  people, 
than  run  into  interfering  regulations. 

In  the  third  place  I  shall  consider,  whether  the  power  of  taxation 
to  be  given  the  general  government  be  safe  :  and  first,  whether  it  be 
safe  as  to  the  public  liberty  in  general.  It  would  be  sufficient  to  re¬ 
mark,  that  they  are,  because  I  conceive,  the  point  has  been  clearly 
established  by  more  than  one  gentleman  who  has  spoken  on  th« 
same  side  of  the  question.  In  the  decision  of  this  question,  it  is  of 
importance  to  examine,  whether  elections  of  representatives  by  great 
districts  of  freeholders  be  favorable  to  fidelity  in  representatives. 
The  greatest  degree  of  treachery  in  representatives,  is  to  be  appre¬ 
hended  where  they  are  chosen  by  the  least  number  of  electors ;  be¬ 
cause  there  is  a  greater  facility  of  using  undue  influence,  and  because 
the  electors  must  be  less  independent.  This  position  is  verified  in 
the  most  unanswerable  manner,  in  that  country  to  which  appeals  ai« 
so  often  made,  and  sometimes  instructively. 

Who  are  the  most  corrupt  members7 in  parliament?  Are  they  not 
the  inhabitants  of  small  towns  and  districts?  The  supporters  of 

hefty  are  from  the  great  counties.  Have  we  not  seen  that  the  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  city  of  London,  who  are  chosen  by  such  thous¬ 
ands  of  voters,  have  continually  studied  and  supported  the  liberties 
of  the  people,  and  opposed  the  corruption  of  the  crown?  We  have 


DEBATES. 


252 


[Madtsost. 


seen  continually  that  most  of  the  members  in  the  ministerial  major¬ 
ity  are  drawn  from  small  circumscribed  districts.  We  may  there¬ 
for  conclude,  that  our  representatives  being  choosen  by  such  exten¬ 
sive  districts,  will  be  upright  and  independent.  In  proportion  as 
we  have  security  against  corruption  in  representatives  we  have  se¬ 
curity  against  corruption  from  every  other  quarter  whatsoever. 

I  shall  take  a  view  of  certain  subjects  which  will  lead  to  some 
reflections,  to  quiet  the  minds  of  those  gentlemen  who  think  that  the 
individual  governments  will  be  swallowed  up  by  the  general  go¬ 
vernment.  In  order  to  effect  this,  it  is  proper  to  compare  the  state 
governments  to  the  general  government,  with  respect  to  reciprocal 
dependence,  and  with  respect  to  the  means  they  have  of  supporting 
themselves,  or  of  encroaching  on  one  another.  At  the  first  compar¬ 
ison  we  must  be  struck  with  these  remarkable  facts.  The  general 
government  has  not  the  appointment  of  a  single  branch  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  governments,  or  of  any  officers  within  the  states,  to:  execute 
their  laws.  Are  not  the  states  integral  parts  of  the  general  govern¬ 
ment?  Is  not  the  president  choosen  under  the  influence  of  the  state 
legislatures?  May  we  not  suppose  that  he  will  be  complaisant  to 
those  from  whom  he  has  his  oppointment,  and  from  whom  he  must 
have  his  re-appointment?  The  senators  are  appointed  altogether  by 
the  legislatures. 

My  honorable  friend  apprehended  a  coalition  between  the  presi¬ 
dent,  senate,  and  house  of  representatives,  against  the  states.  This 
eould  be  supposed  only  from  a  similarity  of  the  component  parts. 

A  coalition  is  not  likely  to  take  place,  because  its  component  parts 
are  heterogeneous  in  their  nature.  The  house  of  representatives  is 
not  chosen  by  the  state  governments,  but  under  the  influence  of 
those  who  compose  state  the  legislature.  Let  us  suppose  ten  men 
appointed  to  carry  the  government  into  effect,  there  is  every  degree 
of  certainty,  that  they  would  be  indebted  for  their  re-election  to  the 
members  of  the  legislatures.  Tf  they  derive  their  appointment  from 
them,  will  they  not  execute  their  duty  to  them?  Besides  this,  will 
not  the  people  (whose  predominant  inteiest  will  ultimately  prevail) 
feel  great  attachment  to  the  state  legislatures?  They  have  the  care 
of  all  local  interests — those  familiar  domestic  objects,  for  which 
men  have  the  strongest  predilection.  The  general  government  on 
the  contrary,  has  the  preservation  of  the  aggregate  interest  of  the 
union — objects,  which  being  less  familiar,  and  more  remote  from 
men’s  notice  have  a  less  powerful  influence  on  their  minds.  Do  we 
not  see  great  and  natural  attachments  arising  from  local  considera¬ 
tions?  This  will  be  the  case  in  a  much  stronger  degree  in  the  state 
governments,  than  in  the  general  government.  The  people  will  be 
attached  to  their  state  legislatures  from  a  thousand  causes;  and  into. 


Madison.]  VIRGINIA.  253 

whatever  scale  the  people  at  large  will  throw  themselves,  that  scale 
will  preponderate. 

Did  we  not  perceive,  in  the  early  stages  of  the  war,  when  con¬ 
gress  was  the  idol  of  America-,  and  when  in  pursuit  of  the  object 
most  dear  to  America,  that  they  Were  attached  to  their  states'?  Af¬ 
terwards  the  whole  current  of  their  affection  was  to  the  states,  and 
would  be  still  the  case,  we’re  it  not  for  the  alarming  situation  of 
America. 

\ 

At  one  period  of  the  congressional  history,  they  had  the  power  to 
trample  on  the  states.  When  they  had  that  fund  of  paper  money  in 
their  hands,  and  could  carry  on  all  their  measures  without  any  de¬ 
pendence  'on  the  states,  was  there  any  disposition  to  debase  the 
state  governments'?  All  that  municipal  authority  which  was  neces- 
saryto  carry  on  the  administration  of  the  government,  they  still  re¬ 
tained  unimpaired.  There  was  no  attempt  to  diminish  it. 

I  am  led  by  what  fell  from  my  honorable  friend  yesterday  to  take 
this  supposed  combination  in  another  view.  Is  it  supposed,  that 
the  influence  of  the  general  government  will  facilitate  a  combination 
between  the  members'?  Is  it  supposed,  that  it  will  preponderate 
against  that  of  the  state  governments?  The  means  of  influence  con¬ 
sist  in  having  the  disposal  of  gifts  and  emoluments,  and  in  the  num¬ 
ber  of  persons  employed  by,  and  dependent  upon  a  government. 
Will  any  gentleman  compare  the  number  of  persons,  which  will  be 
employed  in  the  general  government,  with  the  number  of  those 
which  -will  be  in  the  state  governments?  The  number  of  dependants 
upon  the  state  governments  will  be  infinitely  greater  than  those  on 
the  general  government?  I  may  say  with  truth,  that  there  never 
was  amore  economical  government  in  any  age  or  country,  nor  which 
will  require  fewer  hands,  or  give  less  influence. 

Let  us  compare  the  members  composing  the  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial  powers  in  the  general  government,  with  these  in  the 
states,  and  let  us  take  into  view  the  vast  number  of  persons  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  states  ;  from  the  chief  officers  to  the  lowest,  we  will 
find  the  scale  preponderating  so  much  in  favor  of  the  states,  that 
while  so  many  persons  are  attached  to  them,  it  will  be  impossible 
to  turn  the  balance  ao-ainst  them.  There  will  be  an  irresistable  bias 
towards  the  state  governments. 

Consider  the  number  of  militia  officers,  the  number  justices  of  the 
peace,  the  number  of  the  members  of  the  legislatures,  and  all  the 
various  officers  for  districts,  towns  and  corporations,  all  intermixing 
with,  and  residing  among  the  people  at  large.  While  this  part  of 
the  community  retains  their  affection  to  the  state  governments,  I  con¬ 
ceive  that  the  fact  will  be,  that  the  state  governments,  and  not  the  gen¬ 
eral  government,  will  preponderate.  It  cannot  be  contradicted  that 


DEBATES. 


■254 


[Madison. 


they  have  more  extensive  means  of  influence.  I  have  my  fears 
as  well  as  the  honorable  gentleman — but  my  fears areon  the  other  side* 
Experience,  I  think,  will  prove  (though  there  be  no  infallible  proof 
of  it  here)  that,  the  powerful  and  prevailing  influence  of  the  states, 
will  produce  such  attention  to  local  considerations,  as  will  be  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  advancement  of  the  interest  of  the  union.  But  I 
choose  rather  to  indulge  my  hopes  than  fears,  because  1  flatter  my¬ 
self,  if  inconveniences  should  result  from  it,  that  the  clause  which 
provides  amendments,  will  remedy  them.  The  combination  of  pow¬ 
ers  vested  in  those  persons,  would  seem  conclusive  in  favor  of  tho 
states. 

The  powers  of  the  general  government  relate  to  external  objects, 
and  are  but  few.  But  the  power  in  the  states  relate  to  those  great 
objects  which  immediately  concern  the  prosperity  of  the  people. 
Let  us  observe  also,  that  the  powers  in  the  general  government  are 
those  which  will  be  exercised  mostly  in  time  of  war,  while  those  of 
the  state  governments  will  be  exercised  in  time  of  peace.  But  I  hope 
the  time  of  war  will  be  little,  compared  to  that  of  peace.  I  should 
not  complete  the  view  which  ought  to  be  taken  of  this  subject* 
without  making  this  additional  remark,  that  the  powers  vested 
in  the  proposed  government,  are  not  so  much  an  augmentation 
of  powers  in  the  general  government,  as  a  change  rendered  ne¬ 
cessary,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  efficacy  to  those  which  were 
vested  in  it  before.  It  cannot  escape  any  gentleman,  that  this  pow¬ 
er  in  theory,  exists  in  the  confederation  as  fully  as  in  this  constitu¬ 
tion.  The  only  difference  is  this,  that  now  they  tax  states,  and  by 
this  plan  they  will  tax  individuals.  There  is  no  theoretic  difference 
between  the  two.  But  in  practice  there  will  be  an  infinite  difference 
between  them.  The  one  is  an  ineffectual  power  :  the  other  is  ade¬ 
quate  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  given.  This  change  was  neces¬ 
sary  for  the  public  safety. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the  acts  of  congress  requiring 
money  from  the  states,  had  been  as  effectual  as  the  paper  on  the  ta¬ 
ble — suppose  all  the  laws  of  congress  had  complete  compliance,  will 
any  gentleman  say,  that  as  far  as  we  can  judge  from  past  experience* 
that  the  state  governments  would  have  been  debased,  and  all  consol¬ 
idated  and  incorporated  in  one  system]  My  imagination  cannot 
reach  it.  I  conceive,  that  had  those  acts  that  effect  which  all  lavra 
ought  to  have,  tne  states  would  have  retained  their  sovereignty. 

It  seems  to  be  supposed,  that  it  will  introduce  new  expenses  and 
burdens  on  the  people.  I  believe  it  i3  not  necessary  hero  to  make  a 
■comparison  between  thcexpences  of  the  present  and  of  the  proposed 
government.  All  agree  that  the  general  government  ovmht  to  hav® 


VIRGINIA. 


*255 


# 


ADISON.] 


power  for  the  regulation  of  commerce.  I  will  venture  to  say,  that 
very  great  improvements,  and  very  economical  regulations  will  be 
made.  It  will  be  a  principal  object  to  guard  against  smuggling,  and 
such  other  attacks  on  the  revenue  as  other  nations  are  subject  to. 
We  are  now  obliged  to  defend  against  those  lawless  attempts,  but 
from  the  interfering  regulations  of  different  states,  with  little  suc¬ 
cess.  There  are  regulations  in  different  states  which  are  unfavora¬ 
ble  to  the  inhabitants  of  other  states,  and  which  militate  against  the 
revenue.  New  York  levies  money  from  New  Jersey  by  her  im¬ 
posts.  In  New  Jersey,  instead  of  co-operating  with  New  Ydrk,  the 
legislature  favors  violations  on  her  regulations.  This  will  not  be  the 
case  when  uniform  regulations  will  be  made. 

Requisitions,  though  ineffectual,  are  unfriendly  to  economy. 
When  requisitions  are  submitted  to  the  states,  there  are  near  2,500 
or  3,000  persons  deliberating  on  the  mode  of  payment.  All  these, 
during  their  deliberation,  receive  public  pay.  A  great  proportion 
of  every  session,  in  every  state,  is  employed  to  consider  whether 
they  will  pay  at  all,  and  in  what  mode.  Let  us  suppose  1500  per¬ 
sons  are  deliberating  on  this  subject.  Let  any  one  make  a  calcula¬ 
tion — it  will  be  found  that  a  very  few  days  of  their  deliberation  will 
consume  more  of  the  public  money,  than  one  year  of  that  general 
legislature.  This  is  not  all,  Mr.  Chairman.  When  general  powers 
will  be  vested  in  the  general  government,  there  w'ill  be  less  of  that 
mutability  which  is  seen  in  the  legislation  of  the  states.  The  con¬ 
sequence  will  be  a  great  saving  of  expense  and  time.  There  is 
another  great  advantage  which  I  will  but  barely  mention.  The 
greatest  calamity  to  which  the  United  States  can  be  subject,  is  a  vi¬ 
cissitude  of  laws,  and  continual  shifting  and  changing  from  one  ob¬ 
ject  to  another,  which  must  expose  the  people  to  various  inconve¬ 
niences.  This  has  a  certain  effect,  of  which  sagacious  men  always 
have,  and  always  will  make  an  advantage.  From  whom  is  advan¬ 
tage  made?  From  the  industrious  farmers  and  tradesman  who  are 
ignorant  of  the  means  of  making  such  advantages.  The  people 
will  not  be  exposed  to  these  inconveniences  under  an  uniform  and 
steady  course  of  legislation.  But  they  have  been  so  heretofore.  The 
history  of  taxation  of  this  country  is  so  fully  and  well  known  to  ev¬ 


ery  member  of  this  committee,  that  I  shall  say  no  more  of  it. 

We  have  hitherto  discussed  the  subject  very  irregularly.  I  dare 
not  dictate  to  any  gentleman,  but  I  hope  we  shall  pursue  that  mode 
oi  going  through  the  business,  which  the  house  resolved.  With 
veapect  to  a  great  variety  of  arguments  made  use  of,  I  mean  to  take 
notice  of  them  when  we  come  to  those  parts  of  the  constitution  to 
which  they  apply.  If  we  exchange  this  mode,  for  the  regular  way 
of  proceed  in wf‘  cnn  it  better  in  one  week  then  one  mrsth. 


•2^6  DEBATES.  [Madison^ 

A  desultory  conversation  arose  concerning  the  mode  of  discussion* 

Mr.  HENRY  declared  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  best  mode  was 
to  discuss  it  at  large  :  that'the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  had  done 
so,  as  well  as  those  of  his  side;  and  he-hopedthat  every  gentleman 
would  consider  himself  at  liberty  to  go  intV)  the  subject  fully,  because 
he  thought  it  is  the  best  way  to  elucidated. 

Mr.  MADISON  wished  not  to  exclude  any  light  that  could  be 
cast  on  the  subject.  He  declared  that  he  would  be  the  last  man  that 
would  object  to  the  fullest  investigation ;  but  at  the  same  time  he 
thought  it  would  be  more  elucidated  by  a  regular  progressive  dis¬ 
cussion,  than  by  that  unconnected  irregular  method  which  they  had 
hitherto  pursued. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  gentlemen  will  be  plea¬ 
sed  to  consider,  that  on  so  important  a  subject  as  this,  it  is  impossi¬ 
ble  in  the  nature  of  tilings,  to  avoid  arguing  more  at  large  than  is 
usual.  Y  ou  will  allow  that  I  have  hot  taken  up  a  great  part  of  your 
time.  But  as  gentlemen  have  indulged  themselves  in  entering  at 
large  into  the  subject,  I  hope  to  bepermitted  to  follow  them,  and  an¬ 
swer  their  observations. 

The  worthy  Member  (Mr  Nicholas)  at  a  very  early  day  gave  us 
an  accurate  detail  ef  the  representation  of  the  people  in  Britain,  and 
of  the  rights  of  the  king  of  Britain  ;  and  illustrated  his  observations 
by  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Price.  Gentlemen  will  please  to  take  no¬ 
tice,  that  those  arguments  relate  to  a  single  government,  and  that 
they  are  not  applicable  to  this  case.  However  applicable  they  may 
be  to  such  a  government  as  that  of-Great  Britain,  it  will  be  entirely 
inapplicable  to  such  a  government  as  ours.  The  gentleman  in 
drawing  a  comparison  between  the  representation  of  the  people  in 
the  house  of  commons  in  England,  and  the  representation  in  the 
government  now  proposed  to  us,  has  been  pleased  to  express  his 
approbation  in  favor  of  the  American  government.  Let  us  examine. 
I  think  that  there  are  about  550  members  in  the  English  house  of 
1  commons.  The  people  of  Britain  have  a  representation  in  parlia¬ 
ment  of  550  members,  who  intimately  mingle  with  all  classes  of 
the  people,  feeling  and  knowing  their  circumstances.  In  the  pro¬ 
posed  American  government — in  a  country  perhaps  ten  times  more 
■  extensive,  we  are  to  have  a  representation  of  65,  who  from  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  government,  cannot  possibly  be  >  ingled  with  the  differ¬ 
ent  classes  of  the  people,  nor  have  a  fellow-feeling  6  them. 

They  must  form  an  aristocracy,  and  will  rot  regart  the  ir. 
the  people.  Experience  tells  us,  that  men  pa  r  . 

whose  rank  and  situation  are  similar  to  their  .  u  ih«»  <  ?  -• 
the  investigation,  the  gentleman  mentioned  the  f  ry  >rrUp- 
on  of  parliament,  and  drew  a  conclusion,  the  v»  cverse  of  what 


VIRGINIA. 


257 


JAilOX.] 

I  should  have  formed  on  the  subject.  He  said,  if  I  recollect  Tightly 
that  the  American  representation  is  more  secured  against  bribery  and 
corruption,  than  the  English  parliament.  Are  65  better  than  550? 
Bribery  and  corruption,  in  my  opinion,  will  be  practised  in  Ameri¬ 
ca  more  than  in  England,  in  proportion  as  550  exceed  65;  and  there 
will  be  less  integrity  and  probity  in  proportion  of  65  is  less  than 
550.  From  what  source  is  the  bribery  practised  in  the  British  par¬ 
liament  derived?  I  think  the  principal  source  i3  the  distribution  of 
places,  offices,  and  posts.  Will  any  gentleman  deny  this?  Giye  me 
leave  on  this  occasion  to  recur  to  that  clause  of  the  constitution, 
which  speaks  of  restraint,  and  has  the  appearance  of  restraining 
from  corruption,  &c.  hut  which,  when  examined  will  be  found  to 
he  no  restraint  at  all.  The  clause  runs  thus :  “No  senator  or  rep¬ 
resentative,  shall  during  the  time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  ap¬ 
pointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  have  been  created;  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall 
have  been  increased  during  such  time;  and  no  persons  holding  any 
offiee  under  the  United  States,  shall  be  a  member  of  either  house 
during  his  continuance  in  office.”  This  appears  to  me  to  be  no  re¬ 
straint  at  all.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  this  restraint  only  extends 
to  civil  offices. 

But  I  will  not  examine  whether  it  be  a  proper  distinction  or  not. 
What  is  the  restraint  as  to  civil  offices?  Only  that  they  shall  not 
be  appointed  to  offices  which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emolu¬ 
ments  whereof  shall  have  been  increased,  during  the  time  for  which 
they  shall  have  been  elected.  They  may  be  appointed  to  existing 
♦ffices,  if  the  emoluments  be  not  increased  during  the  time  for  which 
they  were  elected. 

[Here  Mr  Mason  spoke  too  low  to  be  heard.] 

Thus  after  the  government  is  set  in  motion,  the  restraint  will  be 
gone.  They  may  appoint  what  number  of  officers  they  please. 
They  may  send  ambassadors  to  every  part  of  Europe.  Here  is, 
jSir\,  I  think,  as  wide  a  door  for  corruption  as  in  any  government  in 
Europe — there  is  the  same  inducement  for  corruption — there  is  the 
same  room  for  it  in  this  government,  which  they  have  in  the  British 
government,  and  in  proportion  as  the  number  is  smaller,  corruption 
will  be  greater. 

That  unconditional  power  of  taxation  which  is  given  to  that  go¬ 
vernment  cannot  hut  oppress  the  people.  If  instead  of  this,  a  con¬ 
ditional  power  of  taxation  bo  given,  in  case  of  refusal  to  comply 
with  requisitions,  the  sarne  end  will  be  answered  with  convenience 
o  the  people.  This  will  not  lessen  the  power  of  congress.  We  do 
sot  want  to  lessen  the  pevt’or  of  congress  unnecessarily.  This  will  j 
produce  moderation  in  the  demand,  and  will  prevent  the  ruinous  ex- 
TOL,  3.  17 


S3  8 


DEBATES. 


[Masc£. 

ercise  of  that  power  by  those  who  know  not  our  situation.  We  shall 
then  have  that  mode  of  taxation  which  is  the  most  easy,  and  least 
oppressive  to  the  people*  because  it  will  be  exercised  by  those  who 
are  acquainted  with  their  condition  anti  circumstances.  This,  Sir, 
is  the  great  object  we  wish  to  secure  that  our  people  should  be  tax¬ 
ed  by  those  who  have  a  fellow-feeling  for  them.  I  think  I  can  ven¬ 
ture  to  assert,  that  the  general  government  will  lay  such  taxes  a» 
are  the  easiest  and  the  most  productive  in  the  collection.  This  is 
natural  and  probable. 

For  example,  they  may  lay  a  poll  tax.  This  is  simply  and  easily 
collected,  but  is  of  all  taxes  the  most  grevious — why  the  most  gre- 
vousl  Because  it  falls  light  on  the  rich,  and  heavy  on  the  poor.  It 
is  most  oppressive,  for  if  the  rich  man  is  taxed,  he  can  only  retrench 
his  superfluities ;  but  the  consequence  to  the  poor  man  is,  that  it  in¬ 
creases  his  miseries.  That  they  will  lay  the  most  simple  taxes, 
and  such  as  are  easist.  to  collect,  is  highly  probable,  nay,  almost 
absolutely  certain.  I  shall  take  the  liberty  on  this  occasion,  to  read 
you  a  letter  w'hich  will  show,  at  least  as  far  as  opinion  goes,  what 
sort  of  taxes  will  be  most  probably  laid  on  us,  if  we  adopt  this  con¬ 
stitution.  It  was  the  opinion  of  a  gentleman  of  information.  It 
will  in  some  degree  establish  the  fallacy  of  those  reports  which  have 
been  circulated  through  the  country,  and  which  induced  a  great 
many  poor  ignorant  people  to  believe  that  the  taxes  were  to  be  les¬ 
sened  by  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  government. 

[Here  Mr.  Mason  read  a  letter  from  Mr  Robert  Morris,  financier 
of  the  United  States,  to  congress,  wherein  he  spoke  of  the  proprie¬ 
ty  of  laying  the  following  taxes  for  the  use  of  the  United  States; 
viz.  six  shillings  on  every  hundred  acres  of  land  six  shillings  per 
poll,  and  nine  pence  per  g-’llon  on  all  spirituous  liquors  distilled  in 
the  country.  Mr.  Mason  declared,  that  he  did  not  mean  to  make 
the  smallest  reflection  on  Mr  Morris,  but  introduced  his  letter  to 
shew  what  taxes  would  probably  be  laid.] 

He  then  continued  :  This  will  at  least  shew  that  such  taxes  W’er* 
in  agitation,  and  were  strongly  advocated  by  a  considerable  pa.i 
of  congress.  1  have  read  this  letter  to  shew  that  they  will  Ip  -,v 
es  most  easy  to  be  collected,  without  any  regard  "  o  .  :C'uvenience 
so  that  instead  of  amusing  ourselves  with  a  diminuti  n  .four  <  :es, 
^.^e  may  rest  assured  that  they  will  be  incr  1.  iUl. ,  IV  principal 
reason  for  introducing  it.was,  to  show  tha!  be  laid  by 

those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  our  sitaati  .  ,  ai  d  that  the  agents 
of  the  collection  may  be  consulted  upc  the  most  productive  and 
simple  mode  oi  taxation.  The  gentlem  who  wrote  this  letter  had 
more  information  on  this  subject  than  v.  e  ha,-  o  ■  hut  this  will  shew 
gentlemen  that  we  are  not  to  be  eased  oi  ta;ves.  Any  of  these  taxes 
which  have  been  pointed  out  by  this  financier  as  the  most  eligible* 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


259 


will  be  ruinous  and  unequal,  and  will  be  particularly  oppressive  on 
the  poorest  part  of  the  people. 

As  to  a  poll  tax,  I  have  already  spokenof  its  iniquitous  operation, 
and  need  not  say  much  of  it,  because  it  is  so  generally  disliked  in 
this  state,  that  we  were  obliged  to  abolish  it  last  year.  As  to  a  land 
.tax — it  will  operate  most  unequally.  The  man  -who  has  100  acres 
of  the  richest  land  will  pay  as  little  as  a  man  who  has  100  acres  of 
the  poorest  land.  Near  Philadelphia,  or  Boston,  an  acre  of  land  is 
worth  one  hundred  pounds,  yet  the  possessor  of  it  will  pay  rte-more 
than  the  man  with  us  whose  land  is  hardly  worth  20  shillings  an 
acre.  Some  land-holders  in  this  state  will  have  to  pay  20  times  as 
much  as  will  be  paid  for  all  the  land  on  which  Philadelphia  stands. 
And  as  to  excises— this  will  carry  the  exciseman  to  every  farmer’s 
house  who  distills. a  little  brandy  where  he  may  search  and  ransack 
as  he  pleases.  These  I  mention  as  specimens  of  the  kind  of  tax 
which  is  to  be  laid  upon  us  by  those  who  have  no  information  of  our 
situation,  and  by  a  government  where  the  wealthy  are  only  represen¬ 
ted.  It  is  urged,  that  no  new  power  is  given  up  to  the  general  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  that  the  confederation  had  those  powers  before.  That 
system  derived  ,its  power  from  the  state  governments — When  the 
people  of  Virginia  formed  their  government,  they  reserved  certain 
great  powers  in, the  bill  of  rights.  They  would  not  trust  their  own 
citizens,  who  had  a  similarity  of  interest  with  themselves,  and  who 
had  frequent  and  intimate  communication  with  them.  They  would 
not  trust  their  own  fellow-citizens,  X  say,  with  the  exercise  of  those 
great  powers  reserved,  in  the  bill  of  rights.  Do  we  not  by  this  sys¬ 
tem  give  up  a  great  part  of  the  rights,  reserved  by  the  bill  of  rights, 
to  those  who  have  no  fellow-feeling  for  the  people — to  a  government 
where  the  representatives  will  have  no  communication  with  the  peo- 
, pie.2  I  say  then  there  are  great  and  important  powers  which  wTere 
not  transferred  to  the  state  government,  given. up  by  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  by  this  .constitution. 

Let  us  advert  to  the  Cth  article.  It  expressly  declares  that,  “This 
“  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  wdiich  shall  be  made 
“  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made 
“  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law 
“  of  the  land,  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby  :* 
“  any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary 
“  notwithstanding.”  Now,  Sir,  if  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the 
general  government,  as  expressly  said,  be  paramount  to  those  of  any 
state,  are  not  those  rights  writh  which  we  were  afraid  to  trust  our  own 
citizens  annulled  and  given  np  to  the  general  government'?  The  bill 
of  rights  is  a  part  of  our  own  constitution.  The  judges  are  obliged 
, to  take  notice  of  the  laws  of  the  general  government,  consequently 


260 


DEBATES. 


[Ma80J& 


the  rights  secured  by  our  bill  of  rights  are  given  up.  If  they  are* 
not  given  up,  where  are  they  secured1?  By  implication?  Let  gen¬ 
tlemen  shew  that  they  are  secured  in  a  plain,  direct  unequivocal  man¬ 
ner.  It  is  not  in  their  power.  Then  where  is  the  security?  Where 
is  the  barrier  drawn  between  the  government,  and  the  rights  of  the 
citizens,  as  secured  in  our  own  state  government?  These  rights  are 
given  up  in  that  paper,  but  I  trust  that  this  convention  will  never 
give  them  up,  but  will  take  pains  to  secure  them  to  the  latest 
posterity.  If  a  check  be  necessary  in  our  own  state  government,  it 
is  much  more  so  in  a  government  where  our  representatives  are  to 
be  at  the  distance  of  1000  miles  from  us,  without  any  responsibility. 

I  said  the  other  day,  that  they  could  not  have  sufficient  informa¬ 
tion.  I  was  asked  how  the  legislature  of  Virginia  got  their  informa¬ 
tion.  The  answer  is  easy  and  obvious.  They  get  it  from  160  rep¬ 
resentatives  dispersed  through  all  parts  of  the  country.  In  this  go¬ 
vernment  how  do  they  get  it?  Instead  of  160,  there  are  but  10 — cho¬ 
sen,  if  not  wholly,  yet  mostly  from  the  higher  order  of  the  people — - 
from  the  great,  the  wealthy — the  well-born — the  well-born — Mr.  Chair 
man,  that  aristocratic  idol — that  flattering  idea — that  exotc  plant 
which  been  lately  imported  from  the  ports  of  Great  Britain,  and 
planted  in  the  luxurious  soil  of  this  country. 

In  the  course  of  the  investigation,  much  praise  has  been  lavished 
upon  the  article  which  fixes  the  number  of  representatives.  It  only 
*ays,  that  the  proportion  shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  30,000. 

The  worthy  gentleman  says  that  the  nnmber  must  be  increased  be¬ 
cause  representation  and  taxation  are  in  proportion,  and  that  one  can¬ 
not  be  increased  without  increasing  the  other,  nor  decreased  without 
decreasing  the  other.  Let  us  examine  the  weight  of  this  argument. 
If  the  proportion  of  each  state  equally  and  rateably  diminishes,  th* 
words  of  the  constitntion  will  be  as  much  satisfied  as  if  it  had  been 
increased  in  the  same  manner,  without  any  reduction  of  the  taxes. 
Let  us  illustrate  it  familiarly.  Virginia  has  ten  representatives — 
Maryland  has  six.  Virginia  will  have  to  pay  a  sum  in  proportion 
greater  than  Maryland,  as  ten  to  six.  Suppose  Virginia  reduced  t# 
five  and  Maryland  to  three.  The  relative  proportion  of  money,  paid 
by  each,  will  be  the  same  as  before:  and  yet  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  said,  that  if  this  did  not  convince  us  he  would  give  Hp.  I  am 
one  of  those  unhappy  men  who  cennot  be  amused  with  assertions. 
A  man  from  the  dead  might  frighten  me,  but  I  am  sure  that  he  could 
not  convince  me  without  using  better  arguments  than  I  have  yo 
heard. 

The  same  gentleman  shewed  us,  that  though  the  northern  state* 
had  a  most  det  ided  majority  against  us,  yet  the  increase  of  popula- 

ton  among  us  would  in  the  course  of  years  change  it  in  our  favw. 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


261 


A  very  sound  argument  indeed,  that  we  should  cheerfully  bum  our- 
serves  to  death  in  hopes  of  a  joyful  and  happy  resurrection  ! 

The  very  worthy  gentleman  who  presides,  was  pleased  to  tell  us 
that  there  was  no  interference  between  the  legislation  of  the  general 
government  and  that  of  the  state  legislatures.  Pardon  me,  if  I  shew 
the  contrary.  In  the  important  instance  of  taxation  there  is  a  palp¬ 
able  interference.  Suppose  a  poll-tax — the  general  government  can 
$ay  a  poll-tax — the  state  legislatures  can  do  the  same:  can  lay  it  on 
the  same  man,  and  at  the  same  time,  and  yet  it  is  said  there  can  be 
«o  interference.  v  Xs^ 

My  honorable  colleague,  in  the  late  federal  convention,  in  answer 
4o  another  gentleman  who  had  said,  that  the  annals  of  mankind  could 
afford  no  instance  of  rulers  giving  up  power,  has  told  us  that  eight 
«tates  had  adopted  the  constitution,  and  that  this  was  a  relinquish¬ 
ment  of  power.  Ought  this  example  have  any  weight  with  us!  If 
sthat  relinquishment  was  imprudent,  shall  we  imitate  it?  I  will  ven- 
4ure  to  assert,  that  out  of  a  thousand  instances  where  the  people 
precipitately  and  unguardedly  relinquished  their  power,  there  ha« 
not  been  one  instance  of  a  voluntary  surrender  of  it  back  by  rulers. 
He  afterwards  said,  that  freedom  at  home  and  respectability  abroad 
would  be  the  consequence  of  the  adoption  of  this  government,  and 
that  we  cannot  exist  without  its  adoption.  Highly  as  I  esteem  that 
•gentleman,  highly  as  I  esteem  his  historical  knowledge,  I  am  obliged 
to  deny  his  assertions.  ,  > 

If  this  government  will  endanger  our  liberties  in  its  present  state 
its  adoption  will  not  promote  oux  happiness  at  home.  The  people  of 
this  country  are  as  independent,  happy,  and  respectable,  as  those  of 
any  country.  France  is  the  most  powerful  and  respectable  nation  on 
■earth  ;  would  the  planters  of  this  country  change  their  shoes  for  the 
wooden  shoes  of  the  peasants  of  France?  Perhaps  Russia  is  the  next 
greatest  power  in  Europe.  Would  we  change  situation  with  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Russia.2  We  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  Holland.  Some  have 
called  its  government  a  democracy — others  have  called  it  an  aristoc¬ 
racy.  It  is  well  known  to  be  a  republic.  It  has  arisen  to  uncommon 
powerand  wealth.  Compared  toits  neighboring  countries  its  fortune® 
has  been  surprising. 

(Here  Mr.  Mason  made  a  quotation,  shewing  the  comparative 
flourishing  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of  Holland,  even  a  few  years 
after  they  had  shaken  off  the  Spanish  yoke.  That  plenty  and  con¬ 
tentment  were  to  be  every  where  seen — the  peasants  well  clothed— 
provisions  plenty— their  furniture  and  domestic  utensils  in  abundance 
—and  their  lands  well  stocked.  That  on  the  contrary,  the  peope  of 
Spain  were  in  a  poor  and  miserable  condition;  in  want  of  every  thing 
of  which  the  people  of  Holland  enjoyed  the  greatest  abundance.) 

Mr.  Mason  then  continued — As  this  was  within  a  few  years  after 


262 


DEBATES. 


[Masonv 


the  Spanish  revolution,  this  striking  contrast  could  be  owing  to  no 
other  cause  than  the  liberty  which  they  enjoyed  under  their  govern-- 
ment. — Here  behold  the  difference  between  a  powerful  great  consoli¬ 
dation  and  a  confederacy.  They  tell  us,  that  if  we  be  powerful  and 
respectable  abroad,  we  shall  have  liberty  and  happiness  at1  home. 
Let  us  secure  that  liberty — that  happiness  first,  and  we  shall  then  be 
respectable. 

I  have  some  acqjuaintance  with  a  great  many  characters  who  favor 

t 

this  government,  their  connexions,  their  conduct,  their  political  prin¬ 
ciples,  and  a  number  of  other  circumstances.  There  are  a  great  many 
wise  and  good  men  among  them.  But  when  I  look  round  the  number 
of  my  acquaintance  in  Virginia,  the  country  wherein  I  was  born,  and 
have  lived  so  many  years,  and  observe  who  are  the  warmest  and  the 
most  zealous  friends  to  this  new  government,  it  makes  me  think  of 
the  story  of  the  cat  transformed  into  a  fine  lady — forgetting  her  trans¬ 
formation  and  happening,  to  see  a  rat,  she  could  not  restrain  herself*, 
but  sprung  upon  it  out  of  the  chair.. 

He  (Gov.  Randolph)  dwelt  largely  on  the  necessity  of  the  union. 
— A  great  many  others  have  enlarged  on  this  subject.  Foreigners 
would  suppose,  from  the  declamation  about  union,  that  there  was  a 
great  dislike  in  America  to  any  general  American  government.  I  have 
never  in  my  whole  life  heard  one  single  man  deny  the  necessity  and 
propriety  of  the  union.  This  necessity  is  deeply  impressed  on  every 
America  mind'.  There  can  be  no  danger  of  any  object  being  lost  when 
the  mind  of  every  man  in  the  country  is  strongly  attached,  to  it..  But 
I  hope  that  it  is  not  to  the  name,  but  to  the  blessings  of  union  that 
we  are  attached.  Those  gentlemen  who  are  loudest  in  their  praises 
of  the  name,  are  not  more  attached  to  the  reality  than  I  am.  The  se¬ 
curity  of  our  liberty  and  happiness  is  the  object  wre  ought  to  have  in 
view  in  wishing  to  establish  the  union.  If  instead  of  securing  these, 
we  endanger  them,  the  name  of  union  will  be  but  a  trivial  consola¬ 
tion.  If  the  objections  be  removed — if  those  parts  which  are  clearly 
subversive  of  our  rights  be  altered,  no  man  will  go  farther  than  I  will 
to  advance  the  union.  We  are  told  in  strong  language,  of  dangers 
to  which  we  will  be  exposed  unless  we  adopt  this  constitution.  Among 
fhe  rest,  domestic  safety  is  said  to  be  in  danger.  This  government 
does  not  intend  our  domestic  safety.  It  authorises  the  importation 
of  slaves  for  twenty  odd  years,  and  thus  continues  upon  us,  that  ne¬ 
farious  trade.  Instead  of  securing  and  protecting  us,  the  continua¬ 
tion  of  this  detestable  trade  adds  daily  to  our  weakness.  Though 
this  evil  is  increasing,  there  is  no  clause  in  the  constitution  that  will 
prevent  the  northern  and  eastern  states  from  meddling  with  our  whole 
property  of  that  kind.  There  is  a  clause  to  prohibit  the  importation 
of  slaves  after  twenty  years,,  but  there  is  no  provision  made  for  se- 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


263 


euring  to  the  southern  states  those  they  now  possess.  It  is  far  from 
being  a  desirable  property.  But  it  will  involve  us  in  great  difficulties 
and  infecility  to  be  now  deprived  of  them.  There  ought  to  be  a  clause 
in  the  constitution  to  secure  us  that  property,  which  we  have  acquir¬ 
ed  under  our  former  laws,  and  the  loss  of  which  would  bring  ruin  on 
a  great  many  people.  > 

Maryland  and  the  Potomac  have  been  mentioned  .1  have  had  some 
little  means  of  being  acquainted  with  that  subject,  having  been  one 
of  the  commissioners  who  made  the  compact  with  Maryland.  There 
is  no  cause  of  fear  on  that  ground.  Maryland,  says  the  gentleman, 
has  a  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac.  This  is  a  right  which 
*he  never  exercised.  Maryland  was  pleased  with  what  she  had  in 
return  for  a  right  which  she  never  exercised.  Every  ship  which  comes 
within  the  state  of  Maryland,  except  some  small  boats,  must  come 
within  our  country.  Maryland  was  very  glad  to  get  what  she  got 
by  this  compact,  for  she  considered  it  as  next  to  getting  it  without 
any  compensation  on  her  part.  She  considered  it,  at  least  as  next 
to  a  quid  pro  quo.  * 

The  back  lands,  he  says,  is  another  source  of  danger.  Another  day 
will  shew,  that  if  that  constitution  is  adopted  without  amendments, 
there  are  twenty  thousand  families  of  good  citizens  in  the  North 
West  District,  between  the  Alleghany  mountains  and  the  Blue  Ridge 
who  will  run  the  risk  of  being  driven  from  their  lands.  They  will 
be  ousted  from  them  by  the  Indiana  company — by  the  survivors,  al¬ 
though  their  right  and  titles  have  been  confirmed  by  the  assembly  of 
•ur  own  state.  I  will  pursue  it  no  further  now,  but  take  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  consider  it  another  time. 

The  alarming  magnitude  of  our  debts  is  urged  as  a  reason  for  our 
adoption.  And  shall  we,  because  involved  in  debts,  take  less  care  of 
our  rights  and  liberties?  Shall  we  abandon  them,  because  we  owe 
money  which  we  cannot  immediately  pay?  Will  this  system  enable 
us  to  pay  our  debts  and  lessen  our  difficulties?  Perhaps  the  new  go¬ 
vernment  possesses  some  secret,  some  powerful  means  of  turning 
every  thing  to  gold.  It  has  been  called  by  one  gentleman  the  philo¬ 
sopher's  tone.  The  comparison  was  a  pointed  one  at  least  in  this, 
that  on  the  subject  of  producting  gold  they  will  be  both  equally  de¬ 
lusive  and  fallacious.  The  one  will  be  as  inapplicable  as  the  other. 
The  dissolution  of  the  union,  the  dangers  of  separate  confederacies, 
and  the  quarrels  of  borderers,  have  been  enlarged  upon  to  persuade 
as  to  embrace  this  government. 

My  honorable  colleague  in  the  late  convention,  seems  to  raise 
phantoms,  and  to  shew  a  singular  skill  in  exorcisms,  to  terrify  and 
compel  us  to  take  the  new  government  with  all  its  sins  and  dangers.^ 
1  know  that  he  once  saw  as  great  danger  irWk*<JS^"'<t8.'’  What  has 


264 


DEBATES. 


[Lee* 

happened  since  to  alter  his  opinion1?  If  any  thing — I  know  it  not. 
But  the  Virginia  legislature  has  occasioned  it,  by  postponing  the 
matter.  The  convention  had  met  in  June,  instead  of  March  or  April. 
The  liberty  or  misery  of  millions  yet  unborn  are  deeply  concerned 
in  our  decision.  When  this  is  the  case,  I  cannot  imagine  that  the 
short  period  between  the  last  of  September  and  fir?t  of  June  ought 
to  make  any  diffeience.  The  union  between  England  and  Scotland, 
has  been  strongly  instanced  by  the  honorable  gentleman  to  prove  the 
necessity  of  our  acceding  to  this  new  government.  He  must  know 
that  the  act  of  union  secured  the  rights  of  the  Scotch  nation.  The 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  people  of  Scotland  are  expressly  secured. 
We  wish  only  our  rights  to  be  secured.  We  must  have  such  amend¬ 
ments  as  will  secure  the  liberties  and  happiness  of  the  people  cn  a 
plain,  simple  construction,  not  on  a  doubtful  ground.  We  wish  to 
give  the  government  sufficient  energy,  on  a  real  republican  principles, 
but  we  wish  to  withhold  such  powers  as  are  not  absolutely  necessa¬ 
ry  in  themselves,  but  are  extremely  dangerous.  We  wish  to  shut 
the  door  against  corruption  in  that  place  where  it  is  most  dangerous, 
to  secure  against  the  corruption  of  our  own  representatives.  We 
ask  such  an  amendments  as  will  point  out  what  powers  are  reserved 
to  the  state  governments,  and  clearly  discriminate  between  them, 
and  those  which  are  given  to  the  general  government,  so  as  to  pre- 
rent  future  disputes  and  clashing  of  interests.  Grant  us  amendments, 
like  these,  and  we  will  cheerfully  with  our  hands  and  hearts  units 
with  those  who  advocate  it,  and  we  will  do  every  thing  we  can  to 
support  and  carry  it  into  execution.  But  in  its  present  form  we  nev¬ 
er  can  accede  to  it.  Our  duty  to  God  and  to  our  posterity  forbids  it. 
We  acknowledge  the  defects  of  the  confederation  and  the  necessity 
of  a  reform.  We  ardently  wish  for  an  union  with  our  sister  states, 
on  terms  of  security.  This  I  am  bold  to  declare  is  the  desire  of  most 
of  the  people.  On  these  terms  we  will  most  cheerfully  join  with 
the  warmest  friends  of  this  constitution.  On  another  occasion  I  shall 
point  out  the  great  dangers  of  this  constitution,  and  the  amendment# 
which  aie  necessary.  I  will  likewise  endeavor  to  shew  that  amend¬ 
ments  after  ratification,  are  delusive  and  fallacious — perhaps  utterly 
impracticable. 

Mr.  LEE  (of  Westmoreland)  strongly  urged  the  propriety  of  ad¬ 
hering  to  the  resolution  of  the  house,  of  debating  the  subject  regu¬ 
larly :  That  the  irregular  and  disordeilv  manner  in  which  gentle¬ 
men  had  hitherto  proceeded,  was  unfriendly  to  a  rational  and  just 
decision,  tended  to  protract  time  unnecessarily,  and  interfere  with 
the  private  concerns  of  gentlemen. 

v  He  then  proceeded — I^waited  some  time  in  hopes  that  some  gen¬ 
tleman  on’tne  same  sure  of  the  question  would  rise.  1  hope  that  I 


VIRGINIA. 


Grayson.] 


965- 


may  take  the  liberty  of  making  a  few  remarks  on  what  fell  from  tho> 
honorable  gentleman  last  up.  He  has  endeavored  to  draw  our  atten¬ 
tion  from  the  merits  of  the  question,  by  jocose  observations  and 
satirical  allusions.  He  ought  to  know  that  ridicule  is  not  the  test 
of  truth.  Does  he  imagine,  that  he  who  can  raise  the  loudest  laugh 
Is  the  soundest  reasoner?  Sir,  the  judgments,  and  not  the  risibility 
of  gentlemen,  are  to  be  consulted.  Had  the  gentleman  followed  that 
rule  which  he  himself  proposed,  he  vrould  not  have  shown  the  let¬ 
ter  of  a  private  gentleman,  who  in  times  of  difficulty,  had  offered  hif” 
opinion  respecting  the  mode  in  which  it  would  be  most  expedient  teN 
raise  the  public  funds.  Does  it  follow  that  since  a  private  individ¬ 
ual  proposed  such  a  scheme  of  taxation,  that  the  new  government 
will  adopt  itl  But  the  same  principle  has  also  governed  the  gen¬ 
tleman  when  he  mentions  the  expressions  of  another  private  gentle¬ 
man — the  well  horn — that  our  federal  representatives  are  to  be  chos^ 
from  the  higher  orders  of  the  people — from  the  well  horn .  Is  there  * 
single  expression  like  this  in  the  constitution?  Every  man  who  is 
entitled  to  vote  for  a  member  of  our  own  state  legislature,  will  havtTar 
right  to  vote  for  a  member  in  the  house  of  representatives  in  the  gen¬ 
eral  government.  In  both  cases  the  confidence  of  the  people  alone 
can  procure  an  election.  This  insinuation  is  totally  unwarrantable. 
Is  it  proper  that  the  constitution  should  be  thus  attacked  with  the 
opinions  of  every  private  gentleman?  I  hope  we  shall  hear  no  more 
of  such  groundless  aspersions.  Raising  a  laugh,  sir,  will  not  prove 
the  merits,  nor  expose  the  defects  of  this  system. 

The  honorable  gentleman  abominates  it,  because  it  does  not  pro¬ 
hibit  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  because  it  does  not  secure  the 
continuance  of  the  existing  slavery!  Is  it  not  obviously  inconsist¬ 
ent  to  criminate  it  for  two  contradictory  reasons?  I  submit  it  to  the 
consideration  of  the  gentlemen,  whether,  if  it  be  reprehensible  in 
the  one  case,  it  can  be  censurable  in  the  other?  Mr.  Lee  then  con¬ 
cluded  by  earnestly  recommending  to  the  committee  to  proceed  reg¬ 
ularly. 

Mr.  GRAYSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  must  make  a  few  observation* 
on  this  subject,  and  if  my  arguments  are  desultory,  1  hope  1  shall 
itand  justified  by  the  bad  example  which  has  been  set  me,  and  the 
necessity  l  am  under  of  following  my  opponents  through  all  theif 
various  recesses.  I  do  not  in  the  smallest  degree  blame  the  conduct 
of  the  gentlemen  who  represented  this  state  in  the  general  convention. 
I  believe  that  they  endeavored  to  do  all  the  good  to  this  common¬ 
wealth  which  was  in  their  power,  and  that  all  the  members  wh® 
formed  that  convention  did  every  thing  within  the  compass  of  their 
abilities  to  procure  the  best  terms  for  their  particular  states.  That 
the y  did  not  do  more  for  the  general  good  of  America,  is  perhaps  * 


I 


*66 


DEBATES. 


[GRAYSOJf. 


misfortune.  They  are  entitled,  however,  to  our  thanks  and  those  of 
the  people.  Although  I  do  not  approve  of  the  result  of  their  delib- 
rations  I  do  not  crim'nate  or  suspect  the  principles  on  which  they 
acted.  I  desire  that  what  I  may  say  may  not  be  improperly  applied. 
I  make  no  allusions  to  any  gentleman  whatever. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  present  confederation  is  not  defec¬ 
tive.  Its  defects  have  been  actually  experienced.  But  I  am  afraid 
that  they  cannot  be  removed.  It  has  defects  arising  from  reasons 
which  are  inseparable  from  the  nature  of  such  governments,  and 
which  cannot  be  removed  but  by  death.  All  such  governments,  that 
ever  existed  have  uniformly  produced  this  consequence — that  par¬ 
ticular  interests  have  been  consulted,  and  the  general  good,  to  which 
all  wishes  ought  to  be  directed,  has  been  neglected.  But  the  partic¬ 
ular  disorders  of  Virginia  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  confed¬ 
eration.  I  was  concerned  to  hear  the  local  affairs  of  Virginia  men- 
^>ned.  If  these  make  impressions  on  the  minds  of  the  gentlemen, 
why  did  not  the  convention  provide  for  the  removing  the  evils  of 
the  government  of  Virginia?  If  I  am  right,  the  states,  with  respect 
to  their  internal  affairs,  are  leftjprecisely  as  before  except,  in  a  few 
instances.  Of  course,  the  judiciary,  should  this  government  be 
adopted,  would  not  be  improved ;  the  state  government  wmuld  be  ia 
this  respect  nearly  the  same,  and  the  assembly  may,  without  judge 
or  jury,  hang  as  many  men  as  they  may  think  proper  to  sacrifice  to 
the  good  of  the  public  Our  judiciary  has  been  certainly  improved 
in  some  respects  since  the  revolution.  The  proceedings  of  our  courts 
are  not  at  least,  as  rapid  as  they  were  under  the  royal  government. 
[Here  Mr.  Grayston  mentioned  a  particular  cause  which  had  been 
thirty-one  years  on  the  docket.] 

The  adoption  of  this  government  will  not  meliorate  our  own  particu¬ 
lar  system.  I  beg  leave  to  consider  the  circumstances  of  the  union 
antecedent  to  the  meeting  of  the  convention  at  Philadelphia.  We 

*  have  been  told  of  phantoms  and  ideal  dangers  to  lead  us  into  measures 
which  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  the  ruin  of  our  country.  If  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  those  dangers  cannot  be  proved — if  there  be  no  apprehension 
of  wars — if  there  be  no  rumors  of  wars,  it  w  ill  place  the  subject  in  a 
different  light,  and  plainly  evince  to  the  world,  there  cannot  be  any 
reason  for  adopting  measures  which  we  apprehend  to  be  ruinous  and 
destructive.  When  this  state  proposed,  that  the  general  government 
should  be  improved,  Massachusetts  was  just  recovered  from  a  rebel¬ 
lion  which  had  brought  the  republic  to  the  brink  ofdestruction;  from 
a  rebellion  which  was  crushed  by  that  federal  government,  which  is 
mow  so  much  contemned  and  abhorred  :  a  vote  of  that  august  body 
for  1500  men,  aided  by  the  exertions  of  the  state,  silenced  all  oppo¬ 
sition,  and  shortly  restored  the  public  tranquility.  Massachusetts, 


VIRGINIA. 


367 


Grayson.] 

was  satisfied  that  these  internal  commotions  were  so  happily  settled 
and  was  so  unwilling-  to  risk  any  similar  distresses  by  theoretic  ex¬ 
periments!  Were  the  eastern  states  willing  to  enter  into  this  mea¬ 
sure1?  Were  they  willing  to  accede  to  the  proposal  of  Virginia?  In- 
what  manner  was  it  received?  Connecticut  revolted  at  the  idea.  The 
eastern  states,  sir,  were  unwilling  to  recommend  a  meeting  of  a  con¬ 
vention,  They  were  well  aware  of  the  dangers  of  revolutions  and 
changes.  W"hy  was  every  effort  used,  and  such  uncommon  pains 
taken  to  bring  it  about?  This  would  have  been  unnecessary,  had  it 
I  been  approved  of  by  the  people.  Was  Pennsylvania  dispos^djor 
j  the  reception  of  this  project  of  reformation?  No,  sir.  She  was  even 
unwilling  to  amend  her  revenue  laws  so  as  to  make  the  five  per  cen- 
i  tarn  operative.  She  was  satisfied  with  things  as  they  were.  There 
was  no  complaint  that  ever  I  heard  of  from  any  other  part  of  the  union 
except  Virginia.  This  being  the  case  among  ourselves,  what  dan¬ 
gers  were  there  to  be  apprehended  from  foreign  nations.  It  will  b & 
easily  shewn  that  dangers  from  that  quarter  were  absolutely  ^agi¬ 
nary.  W'as  not  France  friendly?  Unequivocal  ly  so.  She  was  de¬ 
vising  new  regulations  of  commerce  for  Uur  advantage.  Did  she 
harrass  us  with  applications  for  her  money?  Is  it  likely  that  France 
will  quarrel  with  us?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  she  will 
He  more  desirous  than  ever  to  cling,  after  loosing  the  Dutch  republic, 
her  best  ally?  How  are  the  Dutch?  We  owe  them  money  it  is  true;, 
and  are  thej  not  willing  that  we  should  owe  them  more?  Mr.  Adam® 
applied  to  them  for  a  new  loan  to  the  poor  despised  confederation.. 
They  readily  granted  it.  The  Dutch  have  a  fellow  feeling  for  us. 
They  were  in  the  same  situation  with  ourselves. 

I  believe  that  the  money  which  the  Dutch  borrowed  of  Henry  the 
IVth  is  not  yet  paid.  How  did  they  pass  queen  Elizabeth’s  loan? 
At  a  very  considerable  discount.  They  took  advantage  of  the  weak¬ 
ness  and  necessities  of  James  the  first,  and  made  their  own  terms  with 
that  contemptible  monarch.  Loans  from  nations  are  not  like  loans 
from  private  men.  Nations  lend  money  and  grant  assistance  to  on* 
another  from  views  of  national  interest.  France  was  willing  to  pluck 
the  fairest  feather  out.  of  the  British  crown.  This  was  her  object  in 
aiding  us.  She  will  not  quarrel  with  us  on  pecuniary  considerations. 
Congress  considered  it  in  this  point  of  view,  for  when  a  proposition 
was  made  to  make  it  a  debt  of  private  persons,  it  was  rejected  with¬ 
out  hesitation.  That  respectable  body  wisely  considered,  that  whil* 
we  remained  their  debtors  in  so  considerable  a  degree,  they  would 
not  be  inattentive  to  our  interest. 

With  respect  to  Spain  she  is  friendly  in  a  high  degree.  I  wish 
to  know  by  whose  interposition  was  the  treaty  with  Morocco  made? 
Was  it  not  by  that  of  the  king  of  Spain?.  Several  predatory  nations' 


S68  DEBATES,  [Gratsok. 

disturbed  us, on  going  into  the  Med  iterranean.the  influence  of  Charles 
the  third  at  the  Barbary  court,  and  i64,000,  procured'  as  pood  a 
treaty  with  Morocco  as  could  be  expected.  But  I  acknowledge  it  is 
not  of  any  consequence,  since  the  Algerines  and  people  of  'Tunis 
have  not  entered  into  similar  measures.  We  have  nothing  to  fear 
from  Spain  i  and  were  she  hostile,  she  could  never  be  formidable  to 
this  country.  Her  strength  is  so  scattered,  that  she  never  can  be 
dangerous  to  us  either  in  peace  or  war. 

As  to  Portugal,  we  have  a  treaty  with  her,  which  may  be  very 
advantageous,  though  it  be  not  yet  ratified. 

The  domestic  debt  is  diminished  by  considerable  sales  of  wester* 
lands,  to  Cutler,  Sergeant  and  Company,  to  Simms,  and  of  Royal, 
Flint  and  Company.  The  board  of  treasury  is  authorized  to  sell  ifi 
Europe,  or  any  where  else,  the  residue  of  those  lands. 

4  An  act  of  congress  has  passed  to  adjust  the  public  debts,  betweeft 
file  individual  states  and  the  United  States. 

Was  our  trade  in  a  despicable  situation?  I  shall  say  nothing  of 
what  did  not  come  under  my  own  observation.  When  I  was  in  con¬ 
gress  sixteen  vessels  had  had  sea  letters  in  the  East- India  trade,  and 
two  hundred  vessels  entered  and  cleared  out,  in  the  French  West- 
India  Islands,  in  one  year. 

I  must  confess  that  public  credit  has  suffered,  and  that  our  publie 
creditors  have  been  ill-used.  This  was  owing  to  a  fault  at  the  head 
quarters,  to  congress  themselves,  in  not  apportioning  the  debts  on  th* 
different  states,  and  in  not  selling  the  western  lands  at  an  earlier  pe¬ 
riod.  If  requisitions  have  not  been  complied  with  it  must  be  owing 
to  congress,  who  might  have  put  the  unpopular  debts  on  the  back 
lands.  Commutation  is  abhorrent  to  New  England  ideas.  Specula¬ 
tion  is  abhorrent  to  the  eastern  states.  Those  inconveniences  hav# 
resulted  from  the  bad  policy  of  congress. 

There  are  certain  modes  of  governingthe  people,  which  will  suc¬ 
ceed.  There  are  others  whieh  will  not.  The  idea  of  consolidation 
0  is  abhorrent  to  the  people  of  this  country.  How  were  the  sentiment! 
of  the  people  before  the  meeting  of  the  convention  at  Philadelphia! 
They  had  only  one  object  in  view.  Their  ideas  reached  no  farther 
than  to  give  the  general  government  the  five  per  centum  impost,  and 
the  regulation  of  trade.  When  it  was  agitated  in  congress,  in  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  whole,  this  was  all  that  it  asked,  or  was  deemed  neces¬ 
sary.  Since  that  period  their  views  have  extended  much  farther. 
Horrors  have  been  greatly  magnified  since  the  rising  of  the  convei*- 
&on. 

We  are  now  told  by  the  honorable  gontleman  (Governor  Ran¬ 
dolph)  that  we  shall  have  wars  and  rumours  of  wars,  that  every  ca¬ 
lamity  is  to  attend  us,  and  that  we  shall  be  ruined  and  disunited 


ChuYMK.j  VIRGINIA.  269 

forever,  unless  we  adopt  this  constitution.  Pennsylvania  and  Mar 
ryland  are  to  fall  upon  us  from  the  north,  like  the  Goths  and  Van¬ 
dals  of  old-— the  Algerines,  whose  flat  sided  vessels  never  came  fur¬ 
ther  than  Maderia,  are  to  fill  the  Chesapeake  with  mighty  fleets, 
and  to  attack  us  on  our  front.  The  Indians  are  to  invade  us  with 
numerous  armies  on  our  rear,  in  order  to  convert  our  cleared  land* 
into  hunting  grounds— -and  the  Carolinians  from  the  south,  mounted 
on  alligators,  I  presume,  are  to  come  and  destroy  our  corn  fields,  and 
eat  up  our  little  children!  These,  sir,  are  the  mighty  dangers 
which  await  us  if  we  reject — Dangers  which  are  merely  imaginary, 
and  ludicrous  in  the  extreme'  Are  we  to  be  destroyed  by  Mary¬ 
land  and  Pennsylvania!  What  will  democratic  states  make  war 
for,  and  how  long  since  have  they  imbibed  a  hostile  spirit! 

But  the  generality  are  to  attack  us.  Will  they  attack  us  after 
violating  their  faith  iu  the  first  union!  Will  they  not  violate  their 
faith,  if  they  do  not  take  us  into  their  confederacy!  Have  they  not 
agreed  by  the  old  confederation,  that  the  union  shall  be  perpetual ; 
tad  that  no  alteration  should  take  place  without  the  consent  of  con¬ 
gress  and  the  confirmation  of  the  legislatures  of  every  state!  I  can¬ 
not  think  that  there  is  such  depravity  in  mankind  as  that,  after  vio¬ 
lating  pnblic  faith  so  flagrantly,  they  should  make  war,  upon  us 

silso,  for  not  following  their  example. 

The  large  states  have  divided  the  back  lands  among  themselves, 
and  have  given  as  much  as  they  thought  proper  to  the  generality. 
For  the  fear  of  disunion  we  are  told,  that  we  oughtfto  take  measures 
which  we  otherwise  should  not.  Disunion  is  impossible.  The 
eastern  states  hold  the  fisheries,  which  are  their  corn  fields,  by  a 
hair.  Thev  have  a  dispute  with  the  British  government  about  their 
limits  this  moment.  Is  not  a  general  and  strong  government  ne¬ 
cessary  for  their  interest!  If  ever  nations  had  inducements  to  peace 
>he  eastern  states  now  have.  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  anx¬ 
iously  look  forward  for  the  fur  trade.  How  can  they  obtain  it  but^ 
by  union!  Can  the  western  posts  be  got  or  retained  without  union! 
How  are  the  little  states  inclined!  They  are  not  likely  to  disunite. 
Their  weakness  will  prevent  them  from  quarelling.  Little  men  are 
seldom  fond  of  quarrelling  among  giants.  Is  theie  not  a  strong  in¬ 
ducement  to  union,  while  the  British  are  on  one  side  and  the  Span- 
aids  on  the  other?  Thank  heaven,  we  have  a  Carthage  of  our 
own! 

But  we  are  told,  that  if  we  do  not  embrace  the  present  moment* 
we  are  lost  forever.  Is  there  no  difleience  between  productive  states 
and  carrying  states?  If  we  bold  out,  will  not  the  tobacco  trade  en¬ 
able  us  to  make  terms  with  the  cariying  states?  Is  there  nothing 
in  a  similarly  of  laws,  religion,  language,  and  manners?  Do^no 


DEBATES. 


£70 


[Grayson. 


these  and  the  intercourse  and  intermarriage,  between  the  people  of 
the  different  states,  invite  them  in  the  strongest  manner  to  union? 

But  what  would  I  do  on  the  present  occasion  to  remedy  the  exis¬ 
ting  defects  of  the  present  confederation?  There  are  two  opinions 
prevailing  in  the  world  :  the  one,  that  mankind  can  only  be  govern¬ 
ed  by  force  :  the  other,  that  ihey  are  capable  of  freedom  and  a  good 
government.  Under  a  supposition  that  mankind  can  govern  them¬ 
selves,  I  would  recommend  that  the  present  confederation  should  be 
amended.  Give  congress  the  regulation  of  commerce.  Infuse  new 
strength  and  spirit  into  the  state  governments  :  for  when  the  compo* 
nent  parts  are  strong  it  will  give  energy  to  the  government,  al¬ 
though  it  be  otherwise  weak.  This  may  be  proved  by  the  union  of 
Utrecht. 

Apportion  the  public  debts  in  such  a  manner  as  to  throw  the  un¬ 
popular  ones  on  the  back  lands.  Call  only  for  requisitions  for  the 
foreign  interest,  and  aid  them  by  loans.  Keep  on  so,  till  the  Amer¬ 
ican  character  be  marked  with  some  certain  features.  We  are  yet 
too  young  to  know  what  w7e  are  fit  for.  The  continual  migration  of 
people  from  Europe,  und  the  settlement  of  new  countries,  on  our 
western  frontiers,  are  strong  arguments  against  making  new  experi¬ 
ments  now  in  government.  When  these  things  are  removed,  we  can 
with  greater  prospect  of  success  devise  changes.  We  ought  to  con¬ 
sider,  as  Montesquieu  says,  whether  the  construction  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  be  suitable  to  the  genius  and  disposition  of  the  people,  as 
well  as  a  variety  of  other  circumstances. 

But  if  this  position  be  not  true,  and  men  can  only  be  governed  by 
force— then  be  as  gentle  as  possible.  What  then  would  I  do?  I 
would  not  take  the  British  monarchy  for  my  model.  We  have  not 
materials  for  such  a  government  in  this  country,  although  I  will  be 
bold  to  say,  that  it  is  one  of  the  governments  in  the  world  by 
which  liberty  and  property  are  best  secured.  But  1  would  adopt 
the  following  govern  nr  ent,  I  would  have  a  presideut  for  life,  choos- 
ing  his  successor  at  the  same  time — a  senate  for  life,  with  the  pow¬ 
ers  of  the  house  of  lords,— and  a  triennial  house  of  representatives, 
with  the  powers  of  the  house  of  commons  in  England. 

By  having  such  a  president,  we  should  have  more  independence 
and  energy  in  the  executive,  and  not  be  incumbered  with  the  ex¬ 
pense,  &c.  of  a  court  and  an  hereditary  prince  and  family.  By 
such  a  senate  we  should  have  more  stability  in  the  laws,  without 
having  an  odious  hereditary  aristocracy.  By  the  other  branch  we 
should  be  fully  and  fairly  represented.  If,  Sir,  we  are  to  be  con¬ 
solidated  at  all,  we  ougnt  to  be  fully  represented  and  governed  with 
sufficient  energy,  according  to  numbers  in  both  houses. 

1  admit  that  coercion  is  necessary  in  every  government  in  some 


Grayson.] 


VIRGINIA, 


271 


degree,  that  it  it  is  manifestly  wanting  in  our  present  government, 
and  that  the  want  of  it  has  ruined  many  nations.  But  I  should  be 
glad  to  know  what  great  degree  of  coercion  is  in  this  constitution, 
more  than  in  the  old  government,  if  the  states  will  refuse  to  comply 
with  requisitions,  and  they  can  only  be  compelled  by  means  of  an 
army.  Snppose  the  people  will  not  pay,  the  taxes,  is  not  the  sword 
to  be  then  employed  ?  The  difference  is  this,  that  by  this  constitu¬ 
tion  the  sword  is  employed  against  individuals,  by  the  other  it  is 
employed  against  the  states,  which  is  more  honorable.  Suppose  a 
general  resistance  to  pay  taxes  in  such  a  state  as  Massachusetts, 
will  it  not  be  precisely  the  same  thing  as  a  non-compliance  with  re¬ 
quisitions. 

Will  this  constitution  remedy  the  fatal  inconveniences  of  the 
clashing  state  interests'?  Will  not  every  member  that  goes  from 
Virginia  be  actuated  by  state  influence]  So  they  will  also  from 
every  other  state.  Will  the  liberty  and  property  of  this  country  be 
secure  under  such  a  government!  What,  Sir,  is  the  present  con¬ 
stitution!  A  republican  government  founded  on  the  principles  of 
monarchy,  with  the  three  estates.  Is  it  like  the  model  of  Tacitus 
or  Mostesquieu!  Are  there  checks  in  it,  as  in  the  British  monar¬ 
chy!  There  is  an  executive  fetter  in  some  parts,  and  as  unlimi¬ 
ted  in  others  as  a  Roman  diGtator.  A  democratic  branch  marked 
with  the  strong  features  of  aristocracy — and  an  aristocratic  branch 
with  all  the  impurities  and  imperfections  of  the  British  house  of 
commons,  arising  from  the  inequality  of  representation  and  want  of 
responsibility.  There  will  be  plenty  of  old  Sarums,  if  the  new  con¬ 
stitution  should  be  adopted.  Do  we  love  the  British  so  well  as  to 
imitate  their  imperfections?  We  could  not  effect  it  more,  than  in 
that  particular  instance.  Are  not  all  defects  and  corruption  found¬ 
ed  on  an  inequality  of  representation  and  want  of  responsibility? 
How  is  the  executive!  Conlrary  to  the  opinion  of  all  the  best  wri¬ 
ters,  blended  with  the  legislative.  We  have  asked  for  bread,  and 
they  have  given  us  a  stone.  I  am  willing  to  give  the  government 
the  regulation  of  trade.  It  will  be  serviceable  in  regulating,  the 
wade  among  the  states.  But  I  believe  that  it  will  not  be  attended 
with  the  advantages  generally  expected. 

As  to  direct  taxation — given  up  this,  and  you  give  up  every  thing 
as  it  is  the  highest  act  of  sovereignty  :  surrender  up  this  inestimable 
jewel,  and  you  throw  away  a  pearl,  richer  than  all  your  tribe.  But  it 
has  been  said  by  an  honorable  gentleman  (Mr  Pendleton)  as  well  as  I 
Tecollect,  that  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  an  interference  between 
the  two  legislatures,  either  in  point  of  direct  taxation,  or  in  any  other 
case  whatsoever.  An  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Mason)  has  applied 
that  they  might  interfere  in  the  case  of  a  poll-tax.  I  will  go  farther. 


272 


DEBATES. 


[Gravsoh, 

ind  say  that  the  ca3e  may  happen  in  the  judiciary.  Suppose  2 
state  execution  and  a  federal  execution  issued  against  the  same  man, 
and  the  state  officer  and  federal  officer  seize  him  at  the  same  moment 
— would  they  divide  the  man  in  two,  as  Solomon  directed  the  child 
to  be  divided  who  was  claimed  by  two  woman?  I  suppose  the  gene¬ 
ral  government,  as  being  paramount,  would  prevail.  How  arc  two 
legislatures  to  coincide  with  powers  transcendent,  supreme  and  om¬ 
nipotent,  for  such  is  the  definition  of  a  legislature?  There  must  be 
an  external  interference,  not  only  in  the  collection  of  taxes,  but  in  tho 
judiciary.  Was  there  ever  such  a  thing  in  any  country  before?  Great 
Britain  never  went  so  far  in  the  stamp  act.  Poyning’s  law — the  ab¬ 
horrence  of  the  Irish  never  went  so  far.  1  never  neard  of  two  su¬ 
preme  co-ordinate  powers  in  one  and  the  same  country  before,  I  can¬ 
not  conceive  how  it  can  happen.  It  surpasses  every  thing  that  I  have 
read  of  concerning  other  governments,  or  that  I  can  conceive  by  the 
utmost  exertion  of  my  faculties. 

But,  Sir,  as  a  cure  for  every  thing,  the  democratic  branch  is  elect¬ 
ed  by  the  people.  What  security  is  there  in  that,  as  has  aiready 
been  demanded?  Their  number  is  too  small.  Is  not  a  small  number 
more  easy  to  be  corrupted  than  a  large  one?  Were  not  the  tribunes  at 
Rome  the  choice  of  the  people?  Were  not  the  decern vii i  chosen  by 
them?  Was  not  Caesar  himself  thechoice  of  the  people?  Did  this  se¬ 
cure  them  from  oppression  and  slavery?  Did  this  render  these  agent# 
so  chosen  by  the  people  upright?  If  560  members  are  coirupted  in 
the  British  house  of  commons,  will  it  not  be  easier  to  corrupt  91 
members  of  the  new  constitution?  But  the  British  house  cfcommons 
are  corrupted  from  the  same  cause  that  our  representatives  will  be — 
I  mean ,from  the  old  Sarums  among  them,  from  the  inequality  of  the 
representation.  How  many  are  legislating  in  this  country  yearly? 
It  is  thought  neeessary  to  have  1500  representatives  for  the  great  pur¬ 
poses  of  legislation  throughout  the  union,  exclusive  of  160  senators, 
which  form  a  proportion  of  about  one  for  every  1500  persons.  By 
the  present  constitution,  these  extensive  powers  are  to  be  exercised 
by  the  small  number  of  91  persons,  a  proportion  almost  20  times 
less  than  the  other.  It  must  be  degrading  indeed  to  think  that  so 
small  a  number  should  be  equal  to  so  many!  Such  a  preferential  dis¬ 
tinction  must  pre-suppose  the  happiest  selection.  They  must  havs 
something  divine  in  their  composition  to  merit  such  a  pre-eminence 
But  my  greatest  objection  is,  that  it  will,  in  its  operation,  be  found 
unequal,  grievous  and  oppressive.  If  it  have  any  efficacy  at  all,  it 
must  be  by  a  faction — a  faction  of  one  part  of  the  union  against  the 
other.  I  think  that  it  has  a  great  natural  imbecility  within  itself, 
too  weak  for  a  consolidated  and  too  strong  for  a  confederate  govern¬ 
ment.  But  if  it  be  called  into  action  by  a  combination  of  seven  states 


VIRGINIA. 


273 


AJrayson.] 

t  will  beterrible  indeed.  We  need  be  at  no  loss  to  determine  how  this 
combination  will  be  formed.  There  is  a  great  difference  of  circum¬ 
stances  between  the  states.  The  interest  of  the  carrying  states  is 
strikingly  different  from  that  of  the  productive  states.  I  mean  not 
to  give  offence  to  any  part  of  America,  but  mankind  are  governed  by 
nterest.  The  carrying  states  will  assuredly  unite,  and  our  situation 
will  be  then  wretched  indeed.  Our  commodities  will  be  transported 
on  their  own  terms  and  every  measure  will  have  for  its  object  their 
particular  interest.  Xet  ill  fated  Ireland  be  ever  present  to  oimyiew. 
We  ought  to  be  wise  enough  to  guard  against  the  abuse  of  such  a 
government.  Republics,  in  fact,  oppress  more  than  monarchies.  If 
we  advert  to  the  page  of  history,  we  wjll  find  this  disposition  too  of¬ 
ten  manifested  in  republican  governments.  The  Romans  in  ancient 
and  the  Dutch  in  modern  times  oppressed  their  provinces  in  are- 
markable  degree. 

I  hope  that  my  fears  are  groundless,  but  I  believe  it  as  I  do  my 
creed,  that  this  government  will  operate  as  a  faction  of  seven  states 
to  oppress  the  rest  of  the  union.  But  it  may  be  said,  that  wTe  are 
represented,  and  cannot  therefore  be  injured — a  poor  representation 
it  will  be!  The  British  would  have  been  glad  to  take  America  into 
the  union  like  the  Scotch,  by  giving  us  a  small  representation.  The 
Irish  might  be  indulged  with  the  same  favor  by  aking  for  it.  Will 
that  lessen  our  misfortunes!  A  small  representation  gives  a  pre¬ 
tence  to  injure  and  destroy.  But,  Sir,  the  Scotch  union  is  introdu¬ 
ced  by  an  honorable  gentleman, as  an  argument  in  favor  of  adoption. 
Would  he  wish  his  country  to  be  on  the  same  foundation  as  Scot¬ 
land!  They  have  but  45  members  in  the  house  of  commons,  and  16 
in  the  house  of  lords. 

These  go  up  regularly  in  order  to  be  bribed.  The  smallness  o 
their  number  puts  it  out  of  their  power  to  carry  any  measure.  And 
this  unhappy  nation  exhibits  the  only  instance  perhaps  in  the  wrnrld 
where  corruption  becomes  a  virtue.  I  devoutly  pray,  that  this  de¬ 
scription  of  Scotland  may  not  be  picturesque  of  the  southern  states, 
n  three  years  from  this  time!  The  committee  being  tired  as  well 
as  myself,  I  will  take  another  time  to  give  my  opinion  more  fully 
on  this  great  and  important  subject. 

Mr.  Monroe,  seconded  by  Mr  Henry,  moved  that  the  committee 
should  rise,  that  Mi  Grayson  might  have  an  opportunity  of  contin¬ 
uing  his  argument  next  day.  Mr  Madison  insisted  on  going 

through  the  business  regularly,  according  to  the  resolution  of  the 
house. 

'Thursday,  the  12 th  of  June,  1788. 

[The  fir3t  and  second  sections  still  under  consideration.] 

'dr.  GRAYSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  asserted  yesterday  that  there 
VOL.  3.  18 


274 


DEBATES. 


[Graysok- 


were  two  opinions  in  the  world — the  one  that  mankind  were  capable 
of  governing  themselves,  the  other,  that  it  required  actual  force  to 
govern  them.  On  the  principle  that  the  first  position  was  true,  and 
which  is  consonant  to  the  rights  of  humanity,  the  house  will  recol¬ 
lect  that  it  was  my  opinion  to  amend  the  present  confederation,  and 
infuse  a  new  portion  of  health  and  strength  into  the  state  govern¬ 
ments  ;  to  apportion  the  public  debts  in  such  a  manner  as  to  throw 
the  unpopular  ones  on  the  back  lands — to  divide  the  rest  of  the  do¬ 
mestic  debt  among  the  different  states,  and  to  call  for  requisitions 
only  for  the  interest  of  the  foreign  debt.  If  contrary  to  this  maxim, 
force  is  necessary  to  govern  men,  I  then  did  propose  as  an  alterna¬ 
tive,  not  a  monarchy  like  that  of  Great  Britain,  but  a  milder  govern¬ 
ment,  one  which  under  the  idea  of  a  general  corruption  of  manners 
and  the  consequent  necessity  'of  force,  should  be  as  gentle  as  possi¬ 
ble.  I  shewed,  in  as  strong  a  manner  as  1  could,  some  of  the  princi¬ 
pal  defects  in  the  constitution.  The  greatest  defect  is  the  opposition 
of  the  componont  parts  to  the  interests  of  the  whole.  For  let  gen¬ 
tlemen  ascribe  its  defects  to  as  many  causes  as  their  imagination 
may  suggest,  this  is  the  principal  and  radical  one.  I  urged,  that  to 
remedy  the  evils  which  must  result  from  this  government,  a  more 
equal  representation  in  the  legislature  and  proper  checks  against 
abuse,  were  iudispensably  necessary.  I  do  not  pretend  to  propose 
for  your  adoption,  the  plan  of  government  which  I  mentioned  as  an 
alternative  to  a  monarchy,  in  case  mankind  were  incapable  of  go¬ 
verning  themselves.  I  only  meant  that  if  it  were  once  established, 
that  force  was  necessary  to  govern  men,  that  such  a  plan  wopld  be 
more  eligible  for  a  free  people  than  the  introduction  of  crowned 
heads  and  nobles.  Having  promised  this  much  to  obviate  miscon¬ 
struction,  I  shall  proceed  to  the  clause  before  us  with  this  observa¬ 
tion,  that  I  prefer  a  complete  consolidation  to  a  partial  one,  but  a 
federal  government  to  either.  In  my  opinion,  the  states  which  give 
np  the  power  of  taxation  has  nothing  more  to  give.  The  people  o'1 
that  state,  which  suffer  any  power  but  her  own  immediate  govern¬ 
ment,  to  interfere  with  the  sovereign  right  of  taxation,  are  gone  for¬ 
ever.  Giving  the  right  of  taxation,  is  giving  a  right  to  increase  the 
miseries  of  the  people.  Is  it  not  a  political  absurdity  to  suppose 
that  there  can  be  two  concurrent  legislatures,  each  possessing  the 
supreme  power  of  direct  taxation?  If  two  powers  come  in  contact 
must  not  the  one  prevail  over  the  ether?  Must  it  not  strike  every 
man’s  mind,  that  two  unlimited,  co-equal,  co  ordinate  authorities, 
sver  the  same  objects,  cannot  exist  together?  But  we  are  told  that 
there  is  one  instance  of  co-existing  powers  in  cases  of  petty  cor¬ 
porations,  29  well  here  as  in  other  parts  of, the  worid.  Thecas® 


Chur  son.] 


VIRGINIA.. 


275 


«f  petty  corporations  does  not  prove  the  propriety  or  possibility  of 
two  co-equal  transcendent  powers  over  the  same  object.  Although 
these  have  the  power  of  taxation,  it  on!)*  extends  to  certain  degrees 
and  for  certain  purposes.  The  powers  of  corporations  are  defined, 
and  operate  on  limited  objects.  Their  power  originates  by  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  legislature,  and  can  be  destroyed  by  the  same  authori¬ 
ty,  Persons  carrying  on  the  powers  of  a  petty  corporation  may  be 
punished  for  interfering  with  the  power  of  the  legislature.  Their 
acts  are  entirely  ^nugatory,  if  they  contravene  those  ot  the  legisla¬ 
ture.  Scotland  is  also  introduced  to  show,  that  two  different  bodies 
may,  with  convenience,  exercise  power  of  taxation  in  the 
same  country.  How  is  the  land  tax  there1?  There  is  a  fixed  appor¬ 
tionment.  When  England  pays  four  shillings  in  the  pound,  Scot¬ 
land  only  pays  £15,000.  This  proportion  cannot  be  departed  frem, 
whatever  augmentation  may  take  place.  There  are  stannary  courts, 
and  a  variety  of  other  inferior  private  courts  in  England.  But  when 
they  pass  the  bounds  of  their  jurisdiction,  the  supreme  courts  in 
Westminister  Hall  may,  on  appeal,  correct  the  abuse  of  their  pow¬ 
er.  Is  there  any  connection  between  the  federal  courts  and  state 
courts?  What  power  is  there  to  keep  them  in  order?  Where  is  there 
any  authority  to  terminate  disputes  between  these  two  contending 
powers?  An  observation  came  from  an  honorable  gentleman  (Mr. 
Mason)  when  speaking  of  the  propriety  of  the  general  government 
exercising  this  power,  that  according  to  the  rules  and  doctrine  of 
representation,  the  thing  was  entirely  impracticable.  I  agreed  with 
him  in  sentiments.  1  waited  to  hear  the  answer  from  the  admirers 
of  the  new  constitution.  What  was  the  answer?  Gentlemen  were 
obliged  to  give  up  the  point  with  respect  to  general  uniform  taxes. 
They  have  the  candor  to  acknowledge  that  taxes  on  slaves  would 
not  affect  the  eastern  sta'es,  and  that  taxes  on  fish  or  pot-ash  would 
not  affect  the  southern  states.  They  are  then  reduced  to  this  dilem¬ 
ma.  In  order  to  support  this  part  of  the  system,  they  are  obliged 
o  controvert  the  first  maxims  of  representation.  The  best  writers 
on  this  subject  lay  it  down  as  a  fundamental  principle,  that  he  who 
lays  a  tax,  should  bear  his  proportion  of  paying  it.  A  tax  that 
with  propriety  be  laid,  and  with  ease  collected  in  Delaware,  might 
be  highly  improper  in  Virginia.  The  taxes  cannot  be  uniform 
throughout  the  states  without  being  oppressive  to  some.  If  they  be 
not  uniform,  some  of  the  members  will  lay  taxes,  in  the  payment  of 
which  they  will  bear  no  proportion.  The  members  of  Delaware 
will  assist  in  laying  a  tax  on  our  slaves,  of  which  they  will  pay  no 
part  whatever.  The  members  of  Delaware  do  not  return  to  Virgi¬ 
nia  to  give  an  account  of  their  conduct.  This  total  want  of  respon¬ 
sibility  and  fellow  feeling,  vi  ill  destroy  the  benefits  of  rfpre;;en‘aUo*>. 


276 


DEBATES. 


[Gra.ysonv 

in  order  to  obviate  this  objection,  the  gentleman  has  said  that  the 
same  evil  existed,  in  some  degree,  in  the  present  confederation.  To 
which  1  answer,  that  the  present  confederation  has  nothing  to  do 
but  to  say  how  such  money  is  necessary,  and  to  fix  the  proportion  to 
be  paid  by  each  state.  They  cannot  say  in  what  manner  the  money 
shall  be  raised. — This  is  left  to  the  state  legislatures. 

But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Madison)  if  we  were  in 
danger,  we  should  be  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  the  clause.  Are- 
we  to  be  terrified  into  a  belief  of  its  necessity1?  It  is  proposed  by 
the  opposition  to  amend  it  in  the  following  manner — that  requisitions 
shall  be  first  made,  and  if  not  paid,  that,  direct  taxas  shall  be  laid 
by  -way  of  punishment.  If  this  ultimate  right  be  in  congress,  will 
it  not  be  in  their  power  to  raise  money  on  any  emergency'?  Wilt 
not  their  credit  be  competent  to  procure  any  sum  they  may  want? 
Gentlemen  agree  that  it  wrould  be  proper  to  imitate  the  conduct  of 
<*iher  countries,  and  Great  Britain  particularly,  in  borrowing  money 
and  establishing  funds  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  loans  ; 
that,  when  the  government  is  properly  organized,  and  its  competent 
cy  to  raise  money  made  known,  public  and  private  confidence  will 
be  the  result,  and  men  will  readily  lend  it  any  sums  it  may  stand  in 
need  of.  If  this  should  be  a  fact,  and  the  reasoning  well  founded,- 
it  will  clearly  follow  that  it  will  be  practicable  to  borrow  money  in 
Cases  of  great  difficulty  and  danger,  on  the  principles  contended  for 
by  the  opposition,  and  this  observation  must  supercede  the  necessity 
of  granting  them  the  powers  of  direct  taxation  in  the  first  instance^ 
provided  the  right  is  secured  in  the  second. 

As  to  the  idea  of  making  extensive  loans  for  extinguishing  the 
present  domestic  debt,  it  is  what  I  have  not  by  any  means  in  con¬ 
templation;  I  think  it  would  be  unnecessary,  unjust  and  impolitic. 
This  country  is  differently  situated  and  circumstanced  from  all  other 
countries  in  the  world*  It  is  now  thinly  inhabited,  but  daily  increa¬ 
sing  in  numbers.  It  Would  not  be  politic  to  lay  grievous  taxes  and 
burdens  at  present.  If  our  numbers  double  in  25  years,  as  is  gen¬ 
erally  believed,  we  ought  to  spare  the  present  race,  because  there 
will  be  double  the  number  of  persous  to  pay  in  that  period  of  time. 
So  that  were  our  matter  so  arranged  that  the  interest  could  be  paid 
regularly,  and  that  any  might  get  his  money  when  he  thought  pro¬ 
per,  as  is  the  case  now  in  England,  it  would  be  all  that  public  faith 
would  require.  Place  the  subject,  however,  in  every  point  of  view, 
whether  as  it  relates  to  raising  money  for  the  immediate  exigencies 
of  the  state,  or  for  the  extinction  of  the  foreign  or  the  domestic  debt, 
still  it  must  be  obvious  that  if  a  proper  confidence  is  place  1  in  the 
acknowledgement  of  the  right,  of  taxation  in  the  second  instance, 
that  every  purpose  can  be  answered. 


<jRAYSON.] 


VIRGINIA, 


277 


However,  Sir,  if  the  states  are  not  blameless,  why  has  not  the 
congress  used  that  coercion  which  is  vested  in  their  government? 
It  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the  Belgic  republic  on  a  similar  oc¬ 
casion,  by  an  actual  exertion  of  force,  brought  a  delinquent  pro¬ 
vince  to  a  proper-sense  of  justice.  The  gentleman  said,  that  in 
case  of  a  partial  compliance  with  requisitions,  the  alternative  pro¬ 
posed  will  operate  unequally  by  taxing  those  who  may  have  already 
paid,  as  well  as  those  who  have  not,  and  involving  the  innocent  in 
the  crimes  of  the  guilty.  Suppose  the  new  government  fully  ves¬ 
ted  with  authority  to  raise  taxes,  it  will  also  operate  unequally.  To 
make  up  antecedent  deficiencies  they  will  lay  more  taxes  the  next 
succeeding  year.  By  this  means,  those  persons  from  whom  a  full 
proportion  shall  have  been  extracted,  will  be  saddled  with  a  share 
of  the  deficiencies,  as  well  as  those  wlw)  shall  not  have  discharged 
their  full  portion.  This  mode  then  will  have  precisely  the  same  un¬ 
equal  and  unjust  operation  as  the  other. 

I  said  yesterday,  that  there  were  1500  represetatives,  and  160  se¬ 
nators,  who  transacted  the  affairs  of  the  different  states.  But  we 
are  told  that  this  great  number  is  unnecessary,  and  that  in  the  mul¬ 
titude  of  counsellors  there  is  folly  instead  of  wisdom — that  they 
are  a  dead  weight  on  the  public  business,  which  is  said  in  all  pub¬ 
lic  assemblies  to  devolve  on  a  few.  This  may  in  some  degree  be 
'true,  but  it  will  not  apply  in  the  great  latitude  as  mentioned  by  the 
gentleman.  If  ten  men  in  our  assembly  do  the  public  business, 
may  not  the  same  observation  extend  to  congress'?  May  not  five 
men  do  the  public  business  of  the  union?  But  there  is  a  great  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  objects  of  legislation  in  congress  and  those  of 
the  state  legislatures.  If  the  former  be  more  complicated  there  is  a 
greater  necessity  of  a  full  and  adequate  representation.  It  must  be 
confessed  that  it  is  highly  improper  to  trust  our  liberty  and  proper¬ 
ty  in  the  hands  of  so  few  persons  if  they  were  any  thing  less  than 
divine.  But  it  seems  that  in  this  contest  of  power,  the  state  go¬ 
vernments  have  the  advantage.  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  di¬ 
rectly  the  reverse.  What  influence  can  the  state  governments  be 
supposed  t®  have,  after  the  loss  of  their  most  important  rights? 
Will  not  the  dimunition  of  itheir  power  and  influence  be  an  augmen¬ 
tation  of  those  of  the  general  government?  Will  not  the  officers  of 
the  general  government  receive  higher  compensation  for  their  ser¬ 
vices  than  those  of  the  state  governments?  Will  not  the  most  in¬ 
fluential  men  be  employed  by  congress?  I  think  the  state  govern¬ 
ments  will  be  contemned  and  despised  as  soon  as  they  give  ,up  the 
power  of  direct  taxation;  and  a  state,  says  Montesquieu,  should  lose 
her  existence  sooner  than  her  importance. 

But,  Sir,  we  are  told,  that  if  we  do  not  give  up  this  power  to 


278 


DEBATES.  [Graxsoijv 

congress,  the  impost  will  be  stretched  to  the  utmost  extent.  I  do 
suppose  this  might  follow,  if  the  thing  did  not  correct  itself.  But 
we  know  that  it  is  the  nature  of  this  kind  of  taxation,  that  a  smalt 
duty  will  bring  more  real  money  than  a  large  one.  The  expeiience 
of  the  English  nation  proves  the  .truth  of  this  assertion.  There  has 
been  much  said  of  the  necessity  of  the  five  per  cent,  impost.  1 
have  been  ever  of  opinion,  that  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  would  pro¬ 
duce  more  real  money  into  the  treasury.  But  we  need  not  be  alar¬ 
med  on  this  account,  because  when  smugglers  will  be  induced  by 
heavy  imposts  to  elude  the  laws,  the  general  government  will  find 
it  their  interest  again  to  reduce  them  within  reasonable  and  moder¬ 
ate  limits.  But  it  is  suggested,  that  if  direct  taxation  be  inflicted 
by  way  of  punishment,  it  will  create  great  disturbances  in  the 
country.  This  is  an  assertion  without  argument.  If  man  is  a 
reasonable  being,  he  will  submit  to  punishment,  and  a  quiesce  in 
in  the  justice  of  its  infliction,  when  he  knows  he  deserves  it* 
The  states  w’ill  comply  with  the  requisitions  of  congress  more  read¬ 
ily  when  they  know  that  this  power  may  be  ultimately  used,  and 
if  they  do  ne  t  comply,  they  will  have  no  reasons  to  complain  of  its 
exercise. 

We  are  then  told  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  the  empress  of  Rus¬ 
sia,  the  opposition  to  it  by  Great  Britain,  and  the  acquiescence  of 
other  powers.  We  are  told,  that  in  order  to  become  the  carriers  of 
contending  nations,  it  will  be  necessary  to  be  formidable  at  sea— 
that  we  must  have  a  fleet  in  case  of  a  war  between  Great  Britain 
and  France.  I  think  that  the  powers  who  formed  that  treaty  w  ill  be 
able  to  support  it.  But  if  w7e  were  certain  that  this  would  not  be 
the  case,  still  1  think  the  profits  that  might  atise  from  such  a  tran¬ 
sient  commerce,  could  not  c<  mpensate  for  the  expensess  of  render¬ 
ing  ourselves  formidable  at  sea,  or  the  dangers  that  would  probably 
result  from  the  attempt.  To  have  a  fleet,  in  the  present  limited  pop¬ 
ulation  ofAmeiica,  is,  in  my  opinion, impracticable  and  inexpedient. 
Is  America  in  a  situation  to  have  a  fleet!  1  take  it  to  be  a  rule 
mounded  in  common  sense,  that  manufactureis,  as  w7ell  as  sailors, 
proceed  from  a  redundancy  of  inhabitants.  Our  numbers  compared 
to  our  tenitory  are  very  small  indeed.  I  think,  therefore,  that  all 
attempts  to  have  a  fleet,  till  our  western  lands  are  fully  settled,  are 
nugatory  and  vain.  How  will  you  induce  your  people  to  go  to  sea! 
Is  it  not  more  agieeable  to  fallow  agriculture  than  to  encounter  the 
dangers  and  hardships  cf  the  ocean!  The  same  reasoning  will  ap¬ 
ply  in  a  greater  degree  to  manufacturers.  Both  are  the  result  of 
necessity.  It  would  besides  he  dangerous  to  have  a  fleet  in  our 
present  weak,  dispersed,  and  defenceless  situation.  The  powers  of 
Kurope,  who  have  West  India  possessions,  would  be  alarmed  at 


Graxson.]  VIRGINIA.  279 

any  extraordinary  maritime  exertions,  and  knowing  the  danger  of 
our  arrival  at  manhood  would  crush  us  in  our  infancy.  In  my  opin¬ 
ion,  the  great  objects  most  necessary  to  be  promoted  and  attended 
to  in  America,  are  agriculture  and  population.  First  take  care  that 
you  are  sufficiently  strong  by  land,  to  guard  against  European  par* 
tition :  secure  your  own  house  before  you  attack  that  of  dtl^er  peo¬ 
ple.  I  think  that  the  sailers  who  would  be  prevailed  on  to  go  to 
sea,  would  be  a  real  loss  to  the  community  :  neglect  of  agriculture 
and  loss  ot  labor  would  be  the  certain  consequence  of  such  an  irreg¬ 
ular  policy. 

I  hope,  that  when  these  objections  are  throughly  considered,  all 
ideas  of  having  a  fleet  in  our  infant  situation  will  be  given  over. 
When  the  American  character  is  better  known,  and  the  government 
established  on  permanent  principles — when  we  shall  be  sufficiently 
populous,  and  our  situation  secure,  then  come  forward  with  a  fleet 
—not  witu  a  small  one,  but  with  one  sufficient  to  meet  any  of  the 
maritime  powers. 

The  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Madison)  said  that  the  imposts 
will  be  less  productive  hereafter,  on  account  of  the  increase  of  pop¬ 
ulation.  I  hhall  not  controvert  this  principle.  When  all  the  lands 
are  settled  and  we  have  manufactures  sufficient,  this  may  be  the 
case.  But  I  believe.,  that  for  a  very  long  time  this  cannot  possibly 
happen.  In  islands  and  thick  settled  countries,  where  they  have 
manufactures,  the  principle  will  hold  good,  but  will  not  apply  in 
any  degree  to  our  country.  I  apprehend  that  among  us,  as  the  peo¬ 
ple  in  the  lower  country  find  themselves  straightened  they  will  re* 
move  to  the  frontiers,  which  for  a  considerable  period  will  prevent 
the  lower  country  from  being  very  populous,  or  having  resource  to 
manufactures.  I  cannot  therefore,  but  conclude,  that  the  amount  of 
the  imposts  will  continue  to  increase,  at  least  for  a  great  number  of 

years. 

Holland,  we  are  informed,  is  not  happy,  because  she  has  not  a 
constitution  like  this.  'Phis  is  hut  an  unsupported  assertion.  Do 
we  not  know  the  cause  of  her  misfortunes?  1  he  evil  is  so  coeval 
with  her  existence— there  aie  always  opposite  parties  in  that  repub" 
lie.  There  are  now  two  parties— the  aristocratic  party,  supporting 
the  prince  of  Orange,  and  the  Louvestein  party  supporting  the 
7ights  of  the  people.  France  foments  the  one,  and  Great  Britain, 
the  other.  Is  it  known  that  if  Holland  had  begun  with  such  a  go¬ 
vernment  as  this,  that  the  violence  of  faction  would  not  produce  the 
same  evils  which  they  expedience  at  this  present  moment?  It  is 
said  that  all  our  evils  result  from  requisitions  on  the  states.  1  did 
not  expect  to  hear  of  complaints  for  non-compliance  during  the 
war.  Do  not  gentlemen  recollect  our  situation  during  the  war? 


DEBATES, 


[GrAtSON,- 


A  * 

280 

Y 

Our  ports  were  blocked  up,  and  all  means  of  getting  money  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  almost  every  article  taken  from  the  farmer  for  the  pub¬ 
lic  service,  so  as,  in  many  instances,  not  to  leave  him  enough,  to 
support  his  own  family  with  tolerable  decency  and  comfort.  It  can¬ 
not  be  forgot  that  another  resort  of  government  was  applied  to,  and 
that  press-warrants  were  made  to  answer  for  non-compliance  of  re¬ 
quisitions.  Every  person  must  recollect  our  miserable  situation  du¬ 
ring  the  arduous  contest,  therefore  shall  make  no  farther  apology  for 
the  states,  during  the  existence  of  the  war.  Since  the  peace  there 
have  been  various  causes  for  not  furnishing  the  necessary  quotas  to 
the  general  government.  In  some  of  the  flourishing  states  the  re¬ 
quisitions  have  been  attended  to  ;  in  others  their  non-compliancc  is 
to  be  attributed  more  to  the  inability  of  the  people,  than  to  their  un¬ 
willingness  to  advance  the  general  interests.  Massachusetts  attemp¬ 
ted  to  correct  the  nature  of  things,  by  extracting  more  from  the  peo¬ 
ple  than  they  were  able  to  part  with  :  what  did  it  produce1?  A  rev¬ 
olution  which  shook  that  state  to  its  centre. 

Paper  money  has  been  introduced.  What  did  we  do  a  few  years 
ago.  Struck  off  many  millions,  and  by  the  charms  of  magic  made 
the  value  of  the  emissions  diminish  by  a  forty  fold  ratio.  However 
unjust  or  unreasonable  this  might  be,  I  suppose  it  was  warranted  by 
the  inevitable  laws  of  necessity.  But,  sir,  there  is  no  disposition 
now  of  having  paper  money  :  this  engine  ot  iniquity  is  universally 
reprobated.  But  conventions  give  power,  and  conventions  can  take 
away.  This  observation  does  not  appear  to  me  well  founded.  It  is 
not  so  easy  to  dissolve  a  government  like  this.  Its  dissolution  may 
be  prevented  by  a  trifling  minority  of  the  people  of  America.  The 
consent  of  so  many  states  is  necessary  to  introduce  amendments, 
that  I  fear  they  will  with  great  difficulty  be  obtained.  It  is  said, 
that  a  strong  government  will  increase  our  population  by  the  addi¬ 
tion  of  emigrants.  From  what  quarter  is  emigration  to  proceed? 
From  the  arbitrary  monarchies  of  Europe?  I  fear  this  kind  of  pop¬ 
ulation  would  not  add  much  to  our  happiness  or  improvement :  it  is 
supposed  that  from  the  prevalence  of  the  Orange  faction,  that  num¬ 
bers  will  come  hither  from  Holland,  although  it  is  not  imagined  the 
strength  of  the  government  will  form  the  inducement.  The  exclu¬ 
sive  power  of  legislation  over  the  ten  miles  square,  is  introduced  by 
many  gentlemen.  I  would  not  deny  the  utility  of  vesting  the  gene¬ 
ral  government  with  a  power  of  this  kind,  Were  it  properly  guarded. 
Perhaps  I  am  mistaken,  but  it  occurs  to  ine  that  congress  may  give 
exclusive  privileges  to  merchants  residing  within  the  ten  miles 
square,  and  that  the  same  exclusive  power  of  legislation  will  enable 
them  to  grant  similar  privileges  to  merchants  in  the  strong  holds 
within  the  states.  I  wish  to  know  if  there  be  any  thing  in  the  con- 


Grayson.]  VIRGINIA* 

stitution  to  prevent  it.  If  there  be,  I  have  not  been  able  to 
it.  I  may  perhaps  not  thoroughly  comprehend  this  part  of  the  con¬ 
stitution,  but  it  strikes  my  mind  that  there  is  a  possibility  that  in 
process  of  time,  and  from  the  simple  operation  of  effects  from  causes, 
that  the  whole  commerce  of  the  United  States  may  be  exclusively 
carried  on  by  merchants  residing  within  the  seat  of  government,  and 
those  places  of  arms,  which  may  be  purchased  of  the  state  legisla¬ 
tures.  How  detrimental  and  injurious  to  the  community,  and  how 
repugnant  to  the  equal  rights  of  mankind,  such  exclusive  emolu¬ 
ments  would  be,  I  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  committee* 
Things  of  a  similar  nature  have  happened  in  other  countries,  or  else 
from  whence  have  issued  the  Hans-Towns,  Cinque  Ports  and  other 
places  in  Europe,  which  have  peculiar  privileges  in  commerce  as 
well  as  in  other  matters'?  I  do  not  offer  this  sentiment  as  an  opinion, 
but  a  conjecture,  and  in  this  doubtful  agitation  of  mind  on  a  point  of 
such  infinite  magnitude,  only  ask  for  information  from  the  framers  of 
the  constitution,  whose  superior  opportunities  must  have  furnished 
them  with  more  ample  lights  on  the  subject  than  I  am  possessed  of. 
Something  is  said  on  the  other  side  with  respect  to  the  Mississippi. 
An  honorable  gentleman  has  mentioned,  that  he  was  satisfied  that 
no  member  of  congress  had  any  idea  of  giving  up  that  river.  Sir, 
I  am  not  at  liberty  from  my  situation  to  enter  into  any  investiga¬ 
tion  on  the  subject :  I  am  free,  however,  to  acknowledge  that  I  have 
frequently  heard  the  honorable  member  declare,  that  he  conceived 
the  object  then  in  contemplation,  was  tho  only  method  by  which  the 
right  of  that  river  could  be  ultimately  secured.  I  have  heard  simi¬ 
lar  declarations  from  other  members. 

I  must  beg  leave  to  observe,  at  the  same  time,  that  I  most  deci¬ 
dedly  differed  with  them  in  sentiment.  With  respect  to  the  citizens 
of  the  eastern  and  some  of  the  middle  states,  perhaps  the  best  and 
surest  means  of  discovering  their  general  dispositions,  may  be  by 
having  recourse  to  their  interests.  This  seems  to  be  the  pole  star 
to  which  the  policy  of  nations  is  directed.  If  this  supposition  should 
be  well  founded,  I  think  they  must  have  reasons  of  considerable  mag¬ 
nitude,  for  wishing  the  exclusion  of  that  river.  If  the  Mississippi 
was  yielded  to  Spain,  the  migration  to  the  western  country  would 
be  stopped,  and  the  northern  states  would,  not  only  retain  their  in¬ 
habitants,  but  preserve  their  superiority  and  influence  over  that  of 
of  the  southern.  If  matters  go  on  in  their  present  direction,  there 
will  be  a  number  of  new  states  to  the  westward — population  may 
become  greater  in  the  southern  states — the  ten  miles  square  may  ap¬ 
proach  us!  This  they  must  naturally  wish  to  prevent.-  I  think  gen¬ 
tlemen  may  know  the  disposition  of  the  different  states,  from  the 
geography  of  the  country,  and  from  the  reason  and  nature  of  things. 


DEBATES. 


[GRAYSnjj, 


Is  it  not  highly  imprudent  to  vest  a  power  in  the  generality,  which 
will  enable  those  states  to  relinquish  that  riverl  There  are  but 
feeble  restrictions  at  present  to  prevent  it.  By  the  old  confederation 
nine  states  are  necessary  to  form  any  treaty.  By  this  constitution, 
the  president  with  two  thirds  of  the  members  present  in  the  senate, 
can  make  any  treaty.  Ten  members  are  two-thirds  of  a  quorums- 
Ten  members  are  the  representatives  of  five  states.  The  northern 
states  may  then  easily  make  a  treaty  relinquishing  this  river.  In 
my  opinion,  the  power  of  making  treaties,  by  which  the  territorial 
rights  of  any  of  the  states  may  be  essentially  affected,  ought  to  be 
guarded  against  every  possibility  of  abuse:  and  the  precarious  sit¬ 
uation  to  which  those  rights  will  be  exposed,  is  one  reason  with 
me,  among  a  number  of  others,  for  voting  against  its  adoption. 

Mr  PENDLET  ON. — Mr  Chairman,  when  I  spoke  formerly,  I 
endeavored  to  account  for  the  uneasiness  of  the  public  mind — that 
it  arose  from  objections  to  government  drawn  from  mistaken  sources. 
I  stated  the  general  governments  of  the  world  to  have  been  either 


dictated  by  a  conqueror  at  the  point  of  his  sword,  or  the  offspring 
of  confusion,  when  a  great  popular  leader,  seizing  the  occasion,  if 
he  did  not  produce  it,  restored  order  at  the  expense  of  liberty,  and 
became  the  tyrant.  In  either  case  the  interest  and  ambition  of  the 
despot,  and  not  the  good  of  the  society,  give  the  tone  to  the  govern- 
9  interests.  A  war  is  commenced, 

and  k.  pt  up,  where  there  ought  to  be  union  ;  and  the  friends  of  lib¬ 
erty  have  sounded  the  alarm  to  the  people,  to  regain  that  liberty 
which  circumstances  has  thus  deprived^  them  of.  Those  alarms, 
misrepresented  and  impropeily  applied  to  this  government,  have 
produced  uneasiness  in  the  public  mind. 

I  said,  improperly  applied,  because  the  people  by  us  are  peacea¬ 
bly  assembled,  to  contemplate  in  the  calm  lights  of  mild  philosophy, 
what  government  is  best  calculated  to  promote  their  happiness,  and 
secure  their  liberty.  This  1  am  sure  we  shall  effect,  if  we  do  not 
aose  sight  of  iliem  by  too  much  attachment  to  pictures  of  beauty,  or 
horror,  in  our  researches  into  antiquity,  our  travels  tor  examples  in¬ 
to  remote  regions — or  severe  criticisms  upon,  our  unfriendly  appli¬ 
cations  of  expressions  which  may  drop  in  the  effusions  of  honest 
£,eal.  I  he  term  herd  was  thus  produced — meaning  to  express  a 
multitude.  It  was  capable  of  an  odious  application,  that  of  placing 
the  eilizens  in  a  degrading  character.  I  wish  it  had  not  been  used, 
and  I  wish  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  had  thought  himself  at 
liberty  to  have  let  it  pass,  without  pointing  out  its  odious  meaning. 
However,  i  claim  no  right  to  prescribe  to  him.  It  is  done,  and  it 
must  rest  with  the  candor  of  the  attending  citizens  whom  it  cod- 


PENDLETON.] 


VIRGINIA. 


8; 


cerns,  to  give  it  the  innocent  meaning,  which,  I  am  sure,  theTronw|| 
able  gentleman  intended. 

On  the  subject  of  government,  the  woithy  member  (Mr  Henry,) 
and  I,  differ  at  the  threshold.  I  think  government  necessary  to 
protect  liberty.  He  supposes  the  American  spirit  all-sufficient  for 
the  purpose.  What  say  the  most  respectable  writers — Montesquieu, 
Locke,  Sidney,  Harrington,  &c!  They  have  presented  us  with  no 
such  idea.  They  properly  discard  from  their  system,  all  the  sever¬ 
ity  of  cruel  punishment,  such  as  tortures,  inquisitions,  and  the  like 
—shocking  to  human  nature,  and  only  calculated  to  coerce  the  do¬ 
minion  of  tyrants  over  slaves.  But  they  recommend  making  the 
ligaments  of  government  firm,  and  a  rigid  execution  of  the  laws  as 
more  necessary  than  in  a  monarchy — to  preserve  that  virtue,  which 
they  all  declare  to  be  the  pillaT  on  which  the  government,  and  liber¬ 
ty,  its  object,  must  stand.  They  are  not  so  vissionary  as  to  sup¬ 
pose  there  ever  did  or  ever  will  exist  a  society,  however  large  their 
aggregate  fund  of  virtue  may  be,  but  hath  among  them  persons  of  a 
turbulent  nature,  restless  in  themselves,  and  disturbing  the  peace  of 
others — sons  of  rapine  and  violence,  wrho,  unwilling  to  labor  them¬ 
selves,  are  watching  every  opportunity  to  snatch  from  the  industri¬ 
ous  peasant  the  fruits  of  his  honest  labor.  Was  I  not  then  correct 
in  mv  inference,  that  such  a  government  and  liberty  were  friends 
and  allies,  and  that  their  common  enemy  was  turbulence,  faction, 
and  violence!  It  is  those,  therefore,  that  will  be  offended  by  good 
government,  and  for  those  J  suppose  no  gentleman  will  profess  him 
self  an  advocate. 

The  writers  just  mentioned,  point  out  licentiousness  as  the  natu¬ 
ral  offspring  of  liberty,  and  that,  therefore,  all  free  governments 
should  endeavor  to  suppress  it,  or  else  it  will  ultimately  overthrow 
that  liberty  of  which  it  is  the  result.  Is  this  speculation  only! 
Alas!  reason  and  experience  too  fatally  prove  its  truth  in  all  in¬ 
stances  A  republican  government  is  the  nursery  of  science.  I? 
turns  the  bent  of  it  to  eloquence,  as  a  qualification  for  the  represen¬ 
tative  character,  Which  is  as,  it  ought  to  be,  the  road  to  our  public 
offices  l  have  pleasure  in  beholding  these  characters  alreadv  pro¬ 
duced  in  our  councils — and  a  rising  fund  equal  to  a  constant  supply. 
May  Heaven  prosper  their  endeavors,  and  direct  their  eloquence  to 
the  real  good  of  their  country!  I  am  untoitunate  enough  to  differ 
from  the  worthy  member  in  another  circumstance.  He  professes 
himself  an  advocate  for  middling  and  lower  classes  of  men.  I  pro¬ 
fess  to  he  a  friend  to  the  equal  liberty  of  all  men,  from  the  palace  to 
the  cottage,  without  any  other  distinction  than  between  good  and 
bad  men.  I  appeal  to  my  public  life  and  private  behavior,  to  decide 
whether  I  depaited  from  this  rule.  Since  distinctions  have  beea 


DEBATES. 


[Pendleton. 


ft  forth  and  communicated  to  the  audience,  and  will  be  there¬ 
fore  disseminated,  I  beg  gentlemen  to  take  with  them  this  observa¬ 
tion,  that  distinctions  have  been  produced  by  the  opposition.  From 
the  friends  of  the  new  government  they  have  heard  none.  None 
such  are  to  be  lound  in  the  organization  of  the  paper  before  you. 

Why  bring  into  the  debate  the  whims  of  writers — introducing  the 
distinction  of  well  born  from  others?  I  consider  every  man  well  born 
who  comes,  into  the  world  with  an  intelligent  mind,  and  with  all 
his  parts  perfect.  I  am  an  advocate  for  fixing  our  government  on 
true  republican  principles,  giving  to  the  poor  man  free  liberty  in  his 
person  and  property. 

Whether  a  man  be  great  or  small  he  is  equally  dear  to  me.  I  wish 
sir,  for  a  regular  government,  in  order  to  secure  and  protect  those 
honest  citizens  who  have  been  distinguished — I  mean  the  industri¬ 
ous  farmer  and  planter.  I  wish  them  to  be  protected  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  their  honesty  and  industriously  acquired  property.  I  wish 
commerce  to  be  fully  protected  and  encouraged,  that  the  people  may 
have  an  opportunity  of  disposing  of  their  crops  at  market,  and  of  pro¬ 
curing  such  supplies  as  they  may  be  in  want  of.  I  presume  that  there 
can  be  no  political  happiness,  unless  industry  be  cherished  and  pro¬ 
tected,  and  property  secured.  Suppose  a  poor  man  becomes  rich  by 
honest  labor,  and  increases  the  public  stock  of  wealth,  shall  his  re¬ 
ward  be  the  loss  of  that  liberty  he  set  out  with?  Will  you  take  away 
•every  stimulus  to  industry,  by  declaring  that  he  shall  not  retain  the 
fruits  of  it?  The  idea  of  the  poor  becoming  rich  by  assiduity  is  not 
mere  fancy.  I  am  old  enough,  and  have  had  sufficient  experience 
to  know  the  effects  of  it.  I  have  often  known  persons  commencing 
in  life  without  any  other  stock-  but  industry  and  economy,  by  the 
mere  efforts  of  these,  rise  to  opulence  and  wealth.  This  could  not 
have  been  the  case  without  a  government  to  protect  their  industry. 
In  my  mind  the  true  principle  of  Republicanism,  and  the  greatest 
security  of  liberty,  is  regular  government.  Perhaps  I  may  not  be  a 
republican,  but  this  is  my  idea.  In  reviewing  the  history  of  the 


world,  shall  we  find  ao  instance  where  any  society  retained  its  lib¬ 
erty  without  government?  As  I  before  hinted,  the  smallest  society 
in  extent,  to  the  greatest  empire,  can  only  be  preserved  by  a  regular 
government,  to  suppress  that  faction  and  turbulence  so  natural  to 
many  of  our  species.  What  do  men  do  with  those  passions  when 
they  come  into  society?  Do  they  leave  them?  No — they  bring  them 
with  them.  These  passions  which  they  thus  bring  into  society 
will  produce  disturbances,  which,  without  any  check,  will  over* 
turn  it. 

A  distinction  has  been  made  which  surprised  me  between  the  il¬ 
lumined  mind  and  the  ignorant.  I  have  heard  with  pleasure  in  other 


Pendleton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


2m 


places,  that  worthy  gentleman  expiate  on  the  advantages  of  learning 
among  other  things  as  friendly  to  liberty.  I  have  seen  in  our  code 
of  laws,  the  public  purse  applied  to  cherish  private  seminaries.  This 
is  not  strictly  just,  but  with  me  the  end  sanctified  the  means, and  I  was 
satisfied.  But  did  we  thus  encourage  learning,  to  set  up  those  who 
attained  its  benefits,  as  buts  of  invidious  distinction?  Surely  the 
worthy  member,  on  reflection,  will  disavow  the  idea.  He  learhs  to 
little  purpose  indeed,  who  vainly  supposes  himself  become,  from  the 
circumstance,  of  an  order  of  beings,  superior  to  the  honest  citizens — 
peasants  if  you  please  to  term  them  so — who  in  their  labor  produce 
great  good  to  the  community.  But  those  illumined  minds  who  ap¬ 
ply  their  knowledge  to  promote  and  cherish  liberty — equal  liberty  t> ; 
all,  the  peasant  as  well  as  others — give  to  society  the  real  bless¬ 
ings  of  learning. 

I  have  seen  learning  used  both  ways — but  have  had  pleasure  in 
observing,  that  lately  the  latter  fruits  only  have  generally  appeared, 
which  I  attribute  to  the  influence  of  republican  principles,  and  a 
regard  for  true  liberty.  Am  I  still  suspected  of  want  of  attach¬ 
ment  for  my  -worthy  fellow-citizens,  whom  the  gentleman  calls 
peasants  and  cottagers?  Let  me  add  one  mote  observation :  I  can¬ 
not  leave  them  in  the  state  in  which  he  has  placed  them — in  the 
parallel  between  them  and  those  of  Switzerland — the  United  Ne¬ 
therlands  and  Great  Britain.  The  peasants  of  the  Swiss  cantons 
trade  in  war — trained  in  arms,  they  become  the  mercenaries  of  the 
best  bidder,  to  carry  on  the  destruction  of  mankind  as  an  occupation 
where  they  have  not  even  resentment..  Are  these  a  fit  people  for  a 
comparison  with  our  worthy  planters  and  farmers — in  their  drawing 
food  and  raiment,  and  even  wealth,  by  honest  labour  from  the  bow¬ 
els  of  the  earth,  where  an  inexhaustible  store  is  placed  by  a  bounti¬ 
ful  creator? 

The  citizens  of  the  United  Netherlands  have  no  right  of  suffrage. 
— There  they  lost  that  distinguished  badge  of  freedom.  Their  rep¬ 
resentation  to  their  state  assemblies  is  of  towns  and  cities,  and  not 
of  the  people  at  large.  v 

The  people  of  Britain  have  the  right  of  suffrage,  but  sell  it  for 
a  mess  of  pottage. 

The  happiness  of  the  people  is  the  object  erf  this  government 
and  the  people  are  therefore  made  the  fountain  of  all  power.  The> 
cannot  act  personally  and  must  delegate  powers.  Here  the  worthy 
gentleman  who  spoke  last,  and  I,  travelling  not  together  indeed,  but 
n  sight,  are  placed  at  an  immeasurable  distance — as  far  as  the  poles 
asunder.  He  recommends  a  government  more  energetic  and  strong, 
than  this — abundantly  too  strong  ever  to  receive  my  approbation.  A 
first  Magistrate  borrowed  from  Britain,  to  whom  you  are  to  make  a 


*286 


DEBATES. 


[Pbndleto#* 


surrender  of  your  liberty  and  you  give  him  a  separate  interest  from 
yours.  You  intrench  that  interest  by  powers  and  prerogatives  un¬ 
defined — implant  in  him  self-love,  from  the  influence  of  which  he 
is  to  do,  what — to  promote  your  interest  in  opposition  to  his  own! 
An  operation  of  self-love,  which  is  new!  Having  done  this,  you 
accept  from  him  a  charter  of  the  right  you  have  parted  with—  pre¬ 
sent  him  a  bill  of  rights — telling  him.  Thus  far  shall  you  op¬ 


press  us,  and  no  farther. 

It  still  depends  on  him  whether  he  will  give  you  that  charter,  or 
allow  the  operation  of  the  bill  of  rights.  He  will  do  it  as  long  as 
he  cannot  do  otherwise,  but  no  longer.  Did  ever  any  free  people  in 
the  world,  not  dictated  to,  by  the  sword  of  a  eonquetor,  or  by  cir¬ 
cumstances  into  which  licentiousness  may  have  plunged  them,  place 
themselves  in  so  degrading  a  situation,  or  rrake  so  disgraceful  a 
sacrifice  of  their  liberty!  If  they  did,  sure  I  am  that  the  example 
will  not  be  followed  by  this  convention.  This  is  not  all  :  we  are 
10  look  some  where  for  the  chosen  few  to  go  into  the  ten  miles 
square,  with  extensive  powers  for  life,  and  thereby  destroy  every 
degree  of  true  responsibility.  Is  there  no  medium,  or  shall  we  re¬ 
cur  to  extremes!  As  a  republican,  Sir,  I  think  that  the  security  of 
the  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  people  from  the  highest  to  the  low¬ 
est,  being  the  object  of  government,  the  people  are  consequently  the 
fountain  of  all  power.  They  must  however  delegate  it  to  agents, 
because  from  their  number,  dispersed  situation,  and  many  other  cir¬ 
cumstances,  they  cannot  exercise  it  in  person.  They  must  there¬ 
fore  by  frequent  and  certain  elections  choose  representatives  to  whom 
they  trust  it. 

Is  there  any  distinction  in  the  exercise  of  this  delegation  of  pow¬ 
er!  The  man  who  possesses  twenty-five  acres  of  land,  has  an  equa 
right  of  voting  for  a  representative,  with  the  man  who  has  twenty 
five  thousand  acres.  This  equality  of  suffrage  secures  the  people 
in  their  property.  While  we  are  in  pursuit  of  checks  and  balances, 
and  proper  security  in  the  delegation  of  power,  we  ought  never  to 
lose  sight  of  the  representative  character.  By  this  we  preserve  th« 
great  principle  of  the  primary  right  of  power  in  the  people,  and 
should  deviations  happen  from  our  interest,  the  spirit  of  liberty,  in 
future  elections,  will  correct  it :  a  security  I  esteem  far  superior  to 
paper-bills  ot  rights. 

When  the  bands  of  our  former  society  were  dissolved,  and  wn 
were  under  the  necessity  of  forming  a  new  government,  we  estab¬ 
lished  a  constitution  founded  on  the  principle  ot  representation,  pre¬ 
serving  therein  frequency  of  elections,  and  guarding  against  inequal¬ 
ity  of  suffrage.  I  am  one  of  those  who  are  pleased  with  that  con- 
because  it  is  built  on  that  foundation.  I  believe  that  if  th,3 


Peh&leton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


287 


confederation  had  the  principles  and  efficacy  of  that  constitution,  we 
should  have  found  that  peace  and  happiness  which  we  are  all  in 
search  of.  ,In  this  state  constitution,  to  the  executive  you  commit 
the  sword — to  the  legislative  you  commit  the  purse,  and  every  thing 
else  without  any  limitation.  In  both  cases  the  representative  char¬ 
acter  is  in  full  effect,  and  thereby  responsibility  is  secured.  The 
judiciary  is  separate  and  distinct  from  both  the  other  branches,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  either  the  purse  or  sword,  and  for  obvious  reasons, 
the  judges  hold  their  offices  during  good  behaviour. 

There  will  be  deviations  even  in  our  state  legislatures  thus  con¬ 
stituted.  1  say  (and  1  hope  to  give  no  offence  when  1  do)  there  have 
been  some.  1  believe  every  gentleman  will  see  that  it  is  unconsti¬ 
tutional  to  condemn  any  man  without  a  fair  trial.  Such  a  condemna¬ 
tion  is  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  justice.  It  is  contrary  to  the 
constitution,  and  the  spirit  of  the  common  law.  Look  at  the  bill  of 
rights.  You  find  there,  that  no  man  shall  be  condemned  without 
being  confronted  with  his  accusers  and  witnesses — that  every  mao. 
has  a  right  to  call  for  evidence  in  his  favor,  and  above  all,  to  a  spee¬ 
dy  trial  by  an  in. partial  jury  of  the  vicinage,  without  whose  unani¬ 
mous  consent  he  cannot  be  found  guilty.  These  principles  have  not 
been  attended  to.  An  instance  has_been  mentioned  already,  where 
they  have  been  in  some  degree  violated. 

£Here  Mr  Pendleton  spoke  so  very  low  that  he  could  not  be  heard.] 

•My  brethern  in  that  department  (the  judicial)  felt  great  uneasiness 
n  their  minds,  to  violate  the  constitution  by  such  a  law.  They  have 
prevented  the  operation  of  some  unconstitutional  acts.  Notwith¬ 
standing  those  violations,  I  rely  upon  the  piinciples  of  the  govern¬ 
ment — that  it  will  produce  its  own  reform,  by  the  responsibility  re¬ 
sulting  from  frequent  elections.  W  e  are  finally  safe  while  we  preserve 
the  representative  character.  1  made  these  observations  as  introduc¬ 
tory  to  the  consideration  of  the  paper  on  your  table.  I  conceive  that 
in  those  respects  where  our  state  constitution  has  not  been  disap¬ 
proved  of,  objections  will  not  apply  against  that  on  our  table:  when  we 
were  formino  our  state  constitution  we  were  confined  to  local  circum- 

o 

stances.  In  forming  a  government  for  the  union,  we  must  consider 
our  situation  as  connected  with  our  neighboring  states.  We  have 
seen  the  advantages  and  blessings  of  the  union.  Every  intelligent 
and  patriotic  mind  must  be  convincedthat  it  is  essential  to  our  hap¬ 
piness.  God  grant  we  may  never  see  the  disadvantages  of  disunions 

To  come  to  the  great  object  of  direct  taxation,  more  immmediate- 
iy  under  consideration — it  we  find  it  our  interest  to  be  intimately 
connected  with  the  o:her  12  states,  to  establish  one  common  govern¬ 
ment,  and  Lind  i  i  one  ligament  the  strength  of  1-3  states,  we  will 


DEBATES. 


[Pendleton. 


^88 

find  it  necessary  to  delegate  powers  proportionate  to  that  end ;  for 
the  delegation  of  adaquate  powers  in  this  government  is  no  less  ne¬ 
cessary  than  in  our  state  government.  To  whom  do  we  delegate 
these  powers'?  To  our  own  representatives.  Why  should  we  fear 
so  much  greater  dangers  from  our  representatives  there,  than  from 
hose  we  have  here?  Wliy  make  so  great  a  distinction  between  our 
representatives  here,  and  in  the  federal  government,  where  every 
branch  is  formed  on  the  same  principle — preserving  throughout,  the 
representative  responsible  character?  W’e  have  trusted  our  lives  and 
every  thing  to  our  state  representatives.  W*e  have  particuarly  com¬ 
mitted  our  purse  to  them  with  unlimited  confidence.  I  never  heard 
any  objection  to  it — I  am  sure  I  make  none.  We  ought  to  contribute 
our  share  of  fixing  the  principles  of  the  government.  Here  the  rep¬ 
resentative  character  is  still  preserved.  We  are  to  have  an  equal 
share  in  the  representation  of  the  general  government,  should  we  rat¬ 
ify  this  constitution.  We  have  hitherto  paid  more  than  our  share  of 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  government,  &c.  But  by  this  system 
we  are  to  pay  our  equal  ratable  share  only.  Where  is  the  danger  of 
confiding  in  our  federal  representatives?  Wre  must  choose  those  in 
who  we  can  put  the  greatest  confidence.  They  are  only  to  remain 
two  years  in  office.  WTill  they  in  that  time  lose  all  regard  for  the 
principles  of  honor,  and  their  character,  and  become  abandoned 
prostitutes  of  our  rights?  I  have  no  such  fear.  When  power  is  in 
the  hands  of  my  representatives,  I  care  not  whether  they  meet  here 
or  100  miles  off. 

A  gentleman  (Mr.  Monroe)  has  said,  that  the  power  of  direct  tax¬ 
ation  was  unnecessary,  because  the  imposts  and  back  lands  would 
be  abundantly  sufficient  to  answer  all  federal  purposes — if  so,  what 
are  we  disputing  about?  I  ask  the  gentleman  who  made  the  obser¬ 
vation,  and  this  committee,  if  they  believe  that  congress  will  ever 
lay  direct  taxes  if  the  other  funds  are  sufficient?  It  will  then  re¬ 
main  a  harmless  power  upon  paper,  and  do  no  injury.  If  it  should 
be  necessary,  will  gentlemen  run  the  risk  of  the  union  by  withhol¬ 
ding  it?  I  was  sorry  to  hear  the  subjects  of  requisitions  and  taxation 
misinterpreted.  The  latter  has  been  compared  to  taxation  by  Great 
Britain  without  our  owrn  consent.  The  two  cases  are  by  no  means 
similar.  The  king  of  Great  Britain  has  not  the  purse,  though  he 
holds  the  sword.  He  has  no  means  of  using  the  sword  but  by  re¬ 
quisitions  on  them  who  hold  the  purse.  He  applied  to  the  British 
parliament ;  and  they  were  pleased  to  trust  him  with  our  mone3r 
We  declared,  as  we  had  a  right,  that  we  ought  to  be  taxed  by  our 
own  representatives,  and  that  therefore  their  disposing  of  our  mo¬ 
ney  without  our  consent  was  unjust.  Here  requisitions  are  to  be 
made  by  one  body  of  our  representatives  to  another.  Why  should 


Pendleton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


299 


*his  be  the  case,  when  they  are  both  possessed  of  our  equal  confi¬ 
dence;  both  chosen  in  the  same  manner,  and  equally  responsible  to 
us?  But  we  are  told,  that  there  will  be  a  war  between  the  two  bo¬ 
dies  equally  our  representatives,  and  that  the  state  government  will 
be  destroyed  and  consolidated  into  the  general  government.  I  sta¬ 
ted  before,  that  this  could  not  be  so.  The  two  governments  act  in 
different  manners,  and  for  different  purposes — the  general  govern¬ 
ment  in  great  national  concerns,  in  which  we  are  interested  in  com¬ 
mon  with  other  members  of  the  union — the  state  legislature  in  our 
mere  local  concerns  Is  it  true,  or  merely  imaginary,  that  the  state 
legislatures  will  be  confined  to  the  care  of  bridges  and  roads'?  I 
think  that  they  are  still  possessed  of  the  highest  powers—^our  dear¬ 
est  rights — life,  liberty  and  property,  as  Virginians,  are  still  in  the 
hands, of  our  state  legislature.  If  they  prove  too  feeble  to  protect 
us,  we  resort  to  the  aid  of  the  general  government  for  security. 
The  true  distinction  is,  that  the  two  governments  are  established  for 
different  purposes  and  act  on  different  objects.  So  that  notwithstan¬ 
ding  what  the  worthy  gentleman  said  I  believe  I  am  still  correct, 


and  insist  that  if  each  power  is  confined  within  its  proper  bounds, 
and  to  its  proper  objects,  an  interference  can  never  happen.  Being 
for  two  different  purposes,  as  long  as  they  are  limited  to  the  differ¬ 
ent  objects,  they  can  no  more  clash,  than  two  parallel  lines  can  meet. 
Both  lay  taxes,  but  for  different  purposes.  The  same  officers  may 
be  used  by  both  governments  which  will  prevent  a  number  of  incon¬ 
veniences.  If  an  invasion  or  insurrection,  or  other  misfortune,  shoulu 
make  it  necessary  for  the  general  government  to  interpose,  this  will 
be  for  the  general  purposes  of  the  union,  and  for  fhe  manifest  inter¬ 


est  of  the  states. 


I  mentioned  formerly  that  it  would  never  be  the  interest  of  the 
general  government,  to  destroy  the  state  governments.  From  these 
it  will  derive  great  strength,  for  if  they  be  possessed  of  power,  they 
will  assist  it.  If  they  become  feeole,  or  decay,  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  must  likewise  become  weak,  or  moulder  away. 

But  we  are  alarmed  on  account  of  Kentucky.  We  are  told,  that 
the  Mississippi  is  taken  away.  When  gentlemen  say,  that  seven 
states  are  now  disposed  to  give  it  up,  and  that  it  will  he  given  up  by 
the  operation  of  this  government,  are  they  correct?  It  must  be  sup¬ 
posed  that  on  occasions  of  great  moment,  the  senators  from  all  the 
•states  will  attend — if  they  do,  there  will  be  no  difference  between 
this  constitution  and  the  confederation  in  this  point.  When  they 
are  all  present,  two-thirds  of  them  will  consist  of  the  senators  from 
nine  states,  which  is  the  number  required  by  the  existing  system  to 
form  treaties.  The  consent  of  the  president,  who  is  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  union,  is  also  necessary.  The  right  to  that  river  must 
vol.  3.  19 


debates, 


390 


[  P  K  3f  DL  KTOlf  «- 


be  settled  by  the  sword  or  negotiation.  I  understood  that  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  that  negotiation  which  has  been  on  foot,  was,  that  Spain 
should  have  the  navigation  of  that  river  for  twenty-five  years,  alter 
which  we  were  peaceably  to  retain  it  forever.  This,  I  was  told,  was 
all  that  Spain  required.  If  so,  the  gentleman  who  differed  in  opin¬ 
ion  from  others,  in  wishing  to  gratify  Spain  must  have  been  actua¬ 
ted  by  a  conviction,  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  the  right  fixed  in 
that  manner,  than  trust  to  uncertainty.  I  think  the  inhabitants  of  that 
country,  as  well  as  of  every  other  part  of  the  union,  will  be  better  pro¬ 
tected  by  an  efficient  firm  government,  than  by  the  present  feeble  one. 
We  shall  have  also  a  much  better  chance  for  a  favorable  negotiation, 
if  our  government  be  respectable,  than  we  have  now.  It  is  also  sug¬ 
gested,  that  the  citizens  of  the  western  district  run  the  risk  of  losing 
their  lands,  if  this  constitution  be  adopted  I  am  not  acquainted 
with  the  circumstances  of  the  title  set  up  to  those  lands.  But  this  I 
know,  that  it  is  founded,  not  upon  any  claim  commenced  during  the 
revolution,  but  on  some  latent  claim  that  existed  before  that  period. 
It  was  brought  before  our  assembly  and  rejected,  I  suppose,  because 
they  thought  it  would  at  this  late  period,  involve  the  just  and  unjust, 
indiscriminately,  in  distress.  I  am  bold  to  say,  that  no  assistance 
can  be  given  by  the  constitution  to  the  claimants.  The  federal  le¬ 
gislature  is  not  authorized  to  pass  any  law  affecting  claims  that  ex¬ 
isted  before.  If  the  claim  is  brought  forth,  it  must  be  before  the 
court  of  the  state,  on  the  ground  on  which  it  now  stands,  and  must 
depend  on  the  same  principles  on  which  it  now  depends.  Whether 
this  constitution  be  adopted  or  not,  will  not  affect  the  parties  in  this 
case.  It  will  make  no  difference,  as  to  the  principles  on  which  the 
decision  will  be  made,  whether  it  will  come  before  the  state  court  or 
the  federal  court.  They  will  be  both  equally  independent,  and  ready 
to  decide  in  strict  conformity  to  justice.  I  believe  the  federal  courts 
will  be  as  independent  as  the  state  courts.  I  should  no  more  hesi¬ 
tate  to  trust  my  liberty  and  property  to  the  one,  than  the  other. 
Whenever,  in  any  country  in  the  world,  the  judges  are  independent, 
property  is  secure.  The  existence  of  Great  Britain  depends  on  that 
purity  with  which  justice  is  administered.  When  gentlemen  will 
therefore  find  that  the  federal  legislature  cannot  affect  pre-existing 
claims  by  their  legislation,  and  the  federal  courts  are  on  the  same 
ground  with  the  sfates  courts,  I  hope  there  will  be  no  ground  of 
alarm. 

Permit  me  to  deliver  a  few  sentiments  on  the  great  and  important 
subject  of  previous  and  subsequent  amendments.  When  I  sat  down 
to  read  that  paper,  I  did  not  read  it  with  an  expectation  that  it  was 
perfect,  and  that  no  man  would  object  to  it.  I  had  learned,  sir,  that 
.an  expectation  of  such  perfection  in  any  institute  devised  by  man. 


Pendleton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


291 


was  as  vain  as  the  search  for  the  philosopher’s  stone.  1  discovered 
objections — I  thought  I  saw  there  some  sown  seeds  of  disunion — not 
in  the  immediate  operation  of  the  government,  but  which  might  hap¬ 
pen  in  some  future  time.  I  wish  amendments  to  remove  these.  But 
these  remote  possible  errors  may  be  eradicated  by  the  amendatory 
clause  in  the  constitution.  I  see  no  danger  in  making  the  experi¬ 
ment,  since  the  system  itself  points  out  an  easy  mode  of  removing 
any  errors  which  shall  have  been  experienced.  In.  this  view  then, 
I  think  we  may  safely  trust  in  the  government.  With  respect  to 
the  eight  states  who  have  already  acceded  to  it,  do  gentlemen  be¬ 
lieve,  that,  should  we  propose  amendments,  as  the  sine  qua  non  of 
our  adoption,  they  would  listen  to  our  proposals'?  I  conceive-,  sir, 
that  they  would  not  retract.  They  would  tell  us — No  gentlemen,  we 
cannot  accept  of  your  conditions.  You  put  yourselves  upon  the  gi'ounds 
of  opposition.  Your  amendments  are  dictated  by  local  considerations . 
IVc,  in  our  adoption  have  been  influenced  by  considerations  of  general 
utility  to  the  union.  We  cannot  abandon  principles ,  like  these ,  to  grat¬ 
ify  you.  Thus,  sir,  by  previous  amendments,  we  present  a  hostile 
countenance.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  imitate  the  conduct  of  those 
states,  our  language  will  be  conciliatory  and  friendly.  Gentleman, 
we  put  ourselves  on  the  same  ground  that  you  are  on.  We  are  not  ac¬ 
tuated  by  local  consideiations,  but  by  such  as  affect  the  people  of 
America  in  general.  This  conduct  will  give  our  amendments  full 
weight. 

I  wa6  surprised,  when  I  heard  introduced,  the  opinion  of  a  gentle¬ 
man  (Mr.  Jefferson)  whom  I  highly  respect.  I  know  the  great  abil¬ 
ities  of  that  gentleman.  Providence  has,  tor  the  good  of  mankind, 
accompanied  those  extensive  abilities,  with  a  disposition  to  make 
use  of  them  for  the  good  of  his  fellow  beings  :  and  I  wish  with  all 
my  heart  that  he  was  here  to  assist,  us  on  this  interesting  occasion. 
As  to  his  letter,  impressed  as  I  am  with  the  force  of  his  authority,  [ 
think  it  was  improper  to  introduce  it  on  this  occasion.  The  opinion 
of  a  private  individual,  however  enlightened,  ought  not  to  influence 
oar  decision.  But  admitting  that  this  opinion  ought  to  be  conclusive 
with  us,  it  strikes  me  in  a  different  manner  from  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman.  I  have  seen  the  letter  in  which  this  gentleman  has  written  his 
opinion  upon  this  subject — it  appears  that  he  is  possessed  ofvthat 
constitution,  and  has  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  amending  it — he  has  in 
his  mind  the  very  question  of  subsequent  or  previous  amendments, 
which  is  now  under  consideration.  His  sentiments  on  this  subject 
are  as  follows.  “  I  wish,  with  all  my  soul,  that  the  nine  first  con¬ 
ventions  may  accept  the  new  constitution,  because  it  will  secure  to 
us  the  goo®  it  contains,  which  I  think  great  and  important.  I  wish 
the  four  latest  which  ever  they  be,  may  refuse  to  accede  to  it,  ti]l 


DEBATES, 


[Pendleton* 


40 17  <1 

amendments  are  secured.”  He  then  enumerates  the  amendments* 
which  he  wishes  to  be  secured,  and  adds,  “  We  must  take  care,  how¬ 
ever,  that  neither  this,  nor  any  other  objection  to  the  form,  produce  a 
schism  in  our  union.  That  would  be  an  incurable  evil ;  because 
friends  falling  out  never  cordially  reunite.”  Are  these  sentiments* 
in  favor  of  those  who  wish  to  prevent  its  adoption  by  previous  a- 
menaments?  He  wishes  the  first  nine  states  to  adopt  it.  What  arc 
his  reasons'?  Because  he  thinks  it  will  secure  to  us  the  good  it  con¬ 
tains,  which  he  thinks  great  and  important ,  and  he  wishes  the  other 
four  may  refuse  it,  because  he  thinks  it  may  tend  to  obtain  necessa¬ 
ry  amendments.  But  he  would  not  wish  that  a  schism  should  take 
place  in  the  union  on  any  consideration.  If  then  wye  are  to  be  influ¬ 
enced  by  his  opinion  at  all,  wre  will  ratify  it,  and  secure  thereby?  the 
good  it  contains.  The  constitution  points  out  a  plain  and  ordinary 
method  of  reform  without  any  disturbance  or  convulsions  whatever,. 

I  therefore  think  that  we  ought  to  ratify  it  in  order  to  secure  the 
uhion,  and  trust  to  this  method  for  removing  those  inconveniences- 
which  experience  shall  point  out. 

pMr  Pendleton  added  several  other  observations,  but  spoke  too 

low  to  be  heard.] 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  finding,  Sir,  that  the  clause 
more  immediately  under  consideration  $till  meets  with  the  disappro¬ 
bation  of  the  honorable  gentleman  over  the  way  (Mr  Grayson)  and 
finding  that  the  reasons  of  the  opposition  as  farther  developed,  are 
not  satisfactory  to  myself  and  others  who  are  in  favor  of  the  clause, 

I  wish  that  it  may  meet  with  the  most  thorough  and  complete  in¬ 
vestigation.  I  beg  the  attention  of  the  committee,  in  order  to  ob¬ 
viate  what  fell  from  the  honorable  gentleman.  He  set  forth,  that 
by  giving  up  the  power  of  taxation,  we  should  give  up  every  thing, 
and  still  insist  on  requisitions  being  made  on  the  states,  and  then, 
if  they  be  not  complied  with,  congress  shall  lay  direct  taxes,  by 
way  of  penalty.  Let  us  consider  the  dilemma  which  arises  from 
this  doctrine.  Either  requisitions  will  be  efficacious  or  they  will 
not.  If  they  will  be  efficacious,  then  I  say,  Sir,  we  gave  up  every 
thing  as  much  as  by  direct  taxation. 

The  same  amount  will  be  paid  by  the  people  as  by  direct  taxes. 
If  they  be  not  efficacious,  where  is  the  advantage  of  this  plan?  In 
w  hat  respect  will  it  relieve  us  from  the  inconveniences  which  we 
have  experienced  from  requisitions?  The  power  of  laying  direct 
tuxes  by  the  general  government  is  supposed  by  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  to  be  chimerical  and  impracticable.  What  is  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  alternative  he  proposes?  We  are  to  rely  upon  this 
power  to  be  ultimately  used  as  a  penalty  to  compel  the  states  to 
comply.  If  i  be  chimerical  and  impracticable,  in  the  first  instance. 


$93 


Pendleton.]  VIRGINIA. 

it  will  be  equally  so  when  it  will  be  exercised  as  a  penalty.  A  re¬ 
ference  was  made  to  concurrent  executions  as  an  instance  of  the 
possibility  of  interference  between  the  two  governments. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  spoke  so  low  that  he  could  not  be  distinctly 

heard.] 

This  has  been  experienced  under  the  state  governments  without 
involving  any  inconvenience.  But  it  may  be  answered,  that  under 
the  state  governments,  concurrent  executions  cannot  produce  the 
inconvenience  here  dreaded,  because  they  are  executed  by  the 
same  officer.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  general  government  to 
employ  the  state  officers?  Is  nothing  to  be  left  to  future  legislation^ 
or  must  every  thing  be  immutably  fixed  in  the  constitution?  Where 
exclusive  power  is  given  to  the  union,  there  can  be  no  interference. 
Where  the  general  and  state  legislatures  have  concurrent  power, 
such  regulations  will  be  made,  as  shall  be  found  necessary  to  ex¬ 
clude  interferences  and  other  inconveniences.  It  will  be  their  inter¬ 
est  to  make  regulations. 

It  has  been  said,  that  there  is  no  similarity  between  petty  corpo¬ 
rations  and  independent  states.  I  admit  that  in  many  points  of  view 
there  is  a  great  dissimilarity,  but  in  others,  there  is  a  striking  simi¬ 
larity  between  them,  which  illustrates  what  is  before  us.  Have  we 
not  seen  in  our  own  country  (as  has  been  already  suggested  in  the 
course  of  the  debates)  concurrent  collections  of  taxes  going  on  at 
once,  without  producing  any  inconvenience?  We  have  seen  three 
distinct  collection  of  taxes,  for  three  distinct  purposes.  Has  it  not 
been  possible  for  collections  of  taxes,  for  parochial,  and  county 
state  purposes,  to  go  on  at  the  same  time?  Every  gentleman  must 
know,  that  this  is  now  the  case,  and  though  there  be  a  subordination 
in  these  cases  which  will  not  be  in  the  general  government,  yet  in 
practice  it  has  been  found,  that  these  different  collections  have  been 
concurrently  carried  on,  with  convenience  to  the  people,  without 
clashing  with  one  another,  and  without  deriving  their  harmony  from 
.the  circumstance  of  being  subordinate  to  one  legislative  body.  The 
taxes  will  be  laid  for  different  purposes.  The  members  of  the  one 
government  as  well  as  of  the  other,  are  the  agents  of,  and  subordi¬ 
nate  to,  the  people.  I  conceive  that  the  collections  of  the  taxes  of' 
the  one  will  net  impede  those  of  the  other,  and  that  there  can  he  no 
interference.  This  concurrent  collection  appears  to  me  neither  chi¬ 
merical  nor  impracticable. 

He  compares  resistance  of  the  people  to  collectors,  to  refusal  of 
requisitions.  This  goes  against  all  government.  It  is  as  much  as 
to  urge,  that  there  should  be  no  legislature.  The  gentleman  who 
favored  us  with  their  observations  on  this  subject,  seemed  to  have 
reasoned  on  a  supposition,  that  the  general  government  was  confin 


294 


DEBATES. 


[Madisoit 

ed  by  the  paper  on  your  table  to  lay  general  uniform  taxes.  Is  it 
necessary  that  there  should  be  a  tax  on  any  given  article  through¬ 
out  the  United  States'?  ft  is  represented  to  be  oppressive,  that  the 
states  who  have  slaves  and  make  tobacco,  should  pay  taxes  on  these 
for  federal  wants,  when  other  states  who  have  them  not,  would  es¬ 
cape.  But  does  the  constitution  on  the  table  admit  of  this?  On 
the  contrary,  there  is  a  proportion  to  be  laid  on  each  state  according 
to  its  population.  The  most  proper  articles  will  be  selected  in  each 
state.  If  one  article  in  any  state  should  be  deficient,  it  will  be  laid 
on  another  article.  Our  state  is  secured  on  this  foundation.  Its 
proportion  will  be  commensurate  to  its  population.  This  is  a  con¬ 
stitutional  scale,  which  is  an  insuperable  bar  against  disproportion, 
and  ought  to  satisfy  all  reasonable  minds.  If  the  taxes  be  not  uni¬ 
form,  and  the  representatives  of  some  states  contribute  to  lay  a  tax 
of  which  they  bear  no  proportion,  is  not  this  principle  reciprocal? 
Does  not  the  same  principle  hold  in  our  state  government  in  some 
degree?  It  has  been  found  inconvenient  to  fix  on  uniform  objects 
of  taxation  in  this  state,  as  the  back  parts  are;  not  circumstanced 
like  the  lower  parts  of  the  country.  In  both  cases  the  reciprocity 
of  the  principle  will  prevent  a  disposition  in  one  part  to  oppress 
the  other.  My  honorable  friend  seems  to  suppose  that  congress,  by 
the  possession  of  this  ultimate  power  as  a  penalty,  will  have  as 
ihuch  credit  and  will  be  as  able  to  procure  any  sums,  on  any  emer¬ 
gency,  as  if  they  were  possessed  of  it  in  the'  first  instance,  and  that 
the  votes  of  congress  will  be  as  competent  to  procure  loans,  as  the 
votes  of  the  British  commons.  Would  the  votes  of  the  British 
house  of  commons  have  that  credit  which  they  now  have,  if  they 
were  liable  to  be  retarded  on  their  operation,  and  perhaps,  rendered 
ultimately  nugatory,  as  those  of  congress  must  be  by  the  proposed 
alternative?  When  their  vote  passes,  it  usually  receives  the  con¬ 
currence  of  the  other  branch,  and  it  is  known  that  there  is  sufficient 
energy  in  the  government,  to  carry  it  into  effect. 

But  here  the  votes  of  congress  are  in  the  first  place  dependent  on 
the  compliance  of  thirteen  different  bodies,  and  after  non-compli¬ 
ance,  are  liable  to  be  opposed  and  defeated,  by  the  jealousy  of  the 
states  against  the  exercise  of  this  power,  and  by  the  opposition  of 
the  people  which  may  be  expected,  if  this  power  be  exercised  by 
congress  after  partial  compliances.  These  circumstances  being 
known,  congress  could  not  command  one  shilling.  My  honorable 
friend  seems  to  think  that  we  ought  to  spare  the  present  generation 
and  throw  our  burdens,  upon  posterity.  I  will  not  contest  the 
equity  of  this  reasoning,  but  I  must  say  that  good  policy  as  well  as 
views  of  economy,  strongly  urge  us  even  to  distress  ourselves  to 
comply  with  our  most  selemn  engagements.  We  must  take  effec- 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


295 


tual  provision  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  of  our  public  debts. 
In  order  to  do  justice  to  our  creditors,  and  support  our  credit  and 
reputation,  we  must  lodge  power  some  where  or  other  for  this  pur¬ 
pose.  As  yet  the  United  States  have  not  been  able  by  any  energy 
contained  in  the  old  system,  to  accomplish  this  end. 

Our  creditors  have  a  right  to  demand  the  principal,  but  would  be 
satisfied  with  a  punctual  payment  of  the  interest.  If  we  have 
been  unable  to  pay  the  interest,  much  less  shall  we  be  able  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  principal.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  whole  reasoning 
used  on  this  occasion  shews,  that  we  ought  to  adopt  this  system  to 
enable  us  to  throw  our  burdens  on  posterity.  The  honorable  mem¬ 
ber  spoke  of  the  decemviri  at  Rome  as  having  some  similitude  to  the 
ten  representatives  who  are  to  be  appointed  by  this  state.  I  can  see 
no  point  of  similitude  here,  to  enable  us  to  draw  any  conclusion.. 
For  what  purpose  were  the  decemviri  appointed!  They  were  inves¬ 
ted  with  a  plenipotentiary  commission  to  make  a  code  of  laws.  By 
whom  were  they  appointed?  By  the  people  at  large?  My  memory 
is  not  infallible,  but  it  tells  me  they  were  appointed  by  the  senate. 
I  believe  in  the  name  of  the  people.  If  they  were  appointed  by 
the  senate,  and  composed  of  the  most  influential  characters  among 
the  nobles,  can  any  thing  be  inferred  from  that  against  our  federal 
representatives?  Who  made  a  discrimination  between  the  nobles  and 
the  people?  The  senate. 

Those  men  totally  perverted  the  powers  which  were  given  them 
for  the  purpose  above  specified,  to  the  subversion  of  the  public  liber¬ 
ty.  Can  we  suppose  that  a  similar  usurpation  might  be  made,  by 
men  appointed  in  a  totally  different  manner?  As  their  circumstances 
were  totally  dissimilar,  I  conceive  that  no  arguments  drawn  from 
that  source,  can  apply  to  this  government.  I  do  not  thoroughly 
comprehend  the  reasoning  of  my  honorable  friend,  when  he  tells  us, 
that  the  federal  government  will  predominate,  and  that  the  state 
interest  will  be  lost,  when  at  the  same  time  he  tells  us,  that  it  will 
be  a  faction  of  seven  states.  If  seven  states  will  prevail,  as  states. 
I  conceive  that  state  influence  will  prevail.  If  state  influence  under 
tire  present  feeble  government  has  prevailed,  I  think  that  a  remedy 
ought  to  be  introduced,  by  giving  the  general  government  power  to 
suppress  it. 

He  supposed  that  my  argument  with  respect  to  a  future  war  be¬ 
tween  Great  Britain  and  France  was  fallacious..  The  other  nations 
of  Europe  have  acceded  to  that  neutrality,  while  Great  Britain  op¬ 
posed  it.  We  need  not  expect  in  case  of  such  a  war,  that  we  should 
be  suffered  to  participate  in  the  profitable  emoluments  of  the  carry¬ 
ing  trade,  unless  we  were  in  a  respectable  situation.  Recollect  the 
last  war.  Was  there  ever  a  war  in  which  the  British  nation  stood 


DEBATES. 


$96 


[Madisow. 


opposed  to  so  many  nations?  All  the  belligerent  nations  in  Europe 
with  nearly  one  half  of  the  British  empire,  were  united  against  it. 
Yet  that  nation,  though  defeated,  and  humbled  beyond  any  previous* 
example,  stood  out  against  this.  From  her  firmness  and  spirit  in 
such  desperate  circumstances,  we  may  divine  what  her  future  con¬ 
duct  may  be. 

I  did  not  contend  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  United  States  to 
establish  a  navy  for  that  sole  purpose,  but  instanced  it  as  one  rea¬ 
son,  out  of  several,  for  rendering  ourselves  respectable.  I  am  no 
friend  to  naval  or  land  armaments  in  time  of  peace,  but  if  they  be 
necessary,  the  calamity  must  be  submitted  to.  Weakness  will  in¬ 
vite  insults.  A  respectable  government  will  not  only  entitle  us  to 
a  participation  of  the  advantages  which  are  enjoyed  by  other  nations 
but  will  be  a  security  against  attacks  and  insults.  It  is  to  avoid  the 
calamity  of  being  obliged  to  have  large  armaments  that,  we  should 
establish  this  government.  The  best  way  to  avoid  danger,  is  to  be 
in  a  capacity  to  withstand  it. 

The  impost,  we  are  told,  will  not  diminish,  because  the  emigra¬ 
tions  to  the  westward  will  prevent  the  Increase  of  population.  He 
has  reasoned  on  this  subject  justly  to  a  certain  degree.  I  admit 
that  the  imposts  will  increase,  till  population  becomes  so  great,  a# 
to  compel  us  to  recur  to  manufactures.  The  period  cannot  be  very 
far  distant,  when  the  unsettled  parts  of  America  will  be  inhabited. 
At  the  expiration  of  twenty  five  years  hence,  I  conceive  that  in  every 
part  of  the  United  States,  there  will  be  as  great  a  population  as 
there  is  now  in  the  settled  parts.  "We  see  already,  that  in  the  most 
populous  parts  of  the  union,  and  where  there  is  but  a  medium,  man¬ 
ufactures  are  beginning  to  be  established.  WThere  this  is  the  case 
the  amount  of  importation  will  begin  to  diminish.  Although  the 
impost  may  even  increase  during  the  term  of  twenty-five  years,  yet, 
when  we  are  preparing  a  government  for  perpetuity,  we  ought  to 
found  it  on  permanent  principles,  and  not  on  those  of  a  temporary 
nature. 

Holland  is  a  favorite  quotation  with  honorable  members  on  the 
other  side  of  the  question.  Had  not  their  sentiments  been  discov¬ 
ered  by  other  circumstances,  I  should  have  coneludod  from  their 
reasonings  on  this  occasion,  that  they  were  friends  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion.  I  should  suppose  that  they  had  forgotten  which  side  of  the 
question  they  were  on.  Holland  has  been  called  a  republic,  and  a 
government  friendly  to  liberty.  Though  it  may  be  greatly  superior 
to  some  other  governments  in  Europe,  still  it  is  not  a  republic,  or  a 
democracy.  Their  legislature  consists  in  some  degree  of  men  who 
legislate  for  life.  Their  councils  consists  of  men  who  hold  their 
offices  for  life,  who  fill  up  offices  and  appoint  their  salaries  them- 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


297 


selves.  The  people  have  no  agency  mediate  or  immediate  in  the 
government.  If  we  look  at  their  history  we  shall  find,  that  every 
mischief  which  has  befallen  them,  has  resulted  from  the  existing 
confederacy.  If  the  stadtholder  has  been  productive  of  mischiefs — 
if  we  ought  to  guard  against  such  a  magistrate  more  than  any  evil, 
let  me  beseech  the  honorable  gentleman  to  take  notice  of  what  pro¬ 
duced  that,  and  those  troubles  which  have  interrupted  their  tran¬ 
quility  from  time  to  time.  The  weakness  of  their  confederacy  pro¬ 
duced  both. 

When  the  French  arms  were  ready  to  overpower  their  republic, 
and  were  feeble  in  the  means  of  defence,  which  was  principally 
owing  to  the  violence  of  parties,  they  then  appointed  a  stadtholder, 
who  sustained  them.  If  we  look  at  more  recent  events,  we  shall 
have  a  more  pointed  demonstration  that  their  political  infelicity  arises 
from  the  inbecility  of  their  government.  In  the  late  disorders  the 
states  were  almost  equally  divided,  three  provinces  on  one  side,  three 
on  the  other,  and  the  other  divided.  One  party  inclined  to  the  Prus¬ 
sians,  and  the  other  to  the  French.  The  situation  of  France  did  not 
admit  of  their  interposing  immediately  in  their  disputes  by  an  army, 
that  of  the  Prussians  did.  A  powerful  and  large  army  marched  into 
Holland  and  compelled  the  other  party  to  surrender.  We  know  the 
distressing  consequences  to  the  people.  What  produced  those  dis¬ 
putes  and  the  necessity  of  foreign  interference,  but  the  debility  of 
their  confederacy'?  We  may  be  warned  by  their  example,  and  shun 
their  fate,  by  removing  the  causes  which  produced  their  misfortunes. 
My  honorable  friend  has  referred  to  the  transaction  of  the  federal 
council,  with  respect  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  1  wish  it 
was  consistent  with  delicacy  and  prudence  to  lay  a  complete  view  of 
the  whole  matter  before  this  committee.  The  history  of  it  is  singu¬ 
lar  and  curious,  and  perhaps  its  origin  ought  to  be  taken  into  consid¬ 
eration. 

I  will  touch  on  some  circumstances,  and  introduce  nearly  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  most  of  the  facts  relative  to  it,  that  I  may  not  seem  to 
shrink  from  explanation.  It  was  soon  perceived,  sir,  after  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  ihe  war  with  Britain,  that  among  the  various  objects 
that  would  affect  the  happiness  cf  the  people  of  America,  the  navi¬ 
gation  of  the  Mississippi  was  one.  Throughout  the  whole  history 
of  foreign  negotiation,  great  stress  was  laid  on  its  preservation.  In 
the  time  of  our  greatest  distresses,  and  particularly  when  the  south¬ 
ern  states  were  the  scene  of  war,  the  southern  states  cast  their 
eyes  around  to  be  relieved  from  their  misfortunes.  It  was  supposed 
that  assistance  might  be  obtained  forthe  relinquishment  of  that  nav¬ 
igation.  It  was  thought  that  for  so  substantial  a  consideration, 
Bpain  might  be  induced  to  afford  decisive  succour.  It  was  opposed 


DEBATES. 


m 


[Madison 


by  the  northern  and  eastern  states.  They  were  sensible  that  it  might 
be  dangerous  to  surrender  this  [important  right,  particularly  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  western  country.  But  so  it  was,  that  the  south¬ 
ern  states  were  for  it,  and  the  eastern  states  opposed  to  it.  Since 
obtaining  that  happy  peace,  which  secures  to  us  all  our  claims,  this 
subject  has  been  taken  again  into  consideration,  and  deliberated  upon 
in  the  federal  government.  A  temporary  relinquishment  has  been  ag¬ 
itated.  Several  members  from  the  different  states,  but  particularly 
from  the  northern,  were  for  a  temporary  surrender,  because  it  would 
terminate  disputes,  and  at  the  end  of  the  short  period  for  which  it 
was  to  be  given,  the  right  would  revert,  of  course,  to  those  who  had 
given  it  up.  And  for  this  temporary  surrender  some  commercial  ad¬ 
vantages  were  offered.  For  my  part,  I  consider  this  measure,  though 
fouaded  on  considerations  plausible  and  honorable,  was  yet  not  just¬ 
ifiable,  but  on  grounds  of  inevitable  necessity.  I  must  declare  in 
justice  to  many  characters  who  were  in  congress,  that  they  declared 
that  they  never  would  enter  into  the  measure,  unless  the  situation  of 
the  United  States  was  such  as  could  not  prevent  it. 

I  suppose  that  the  adoption  of  this  government  will  be  favorable, 
to  the  preservation  of  the  right  to  that  navigation.  Emigration  will 
be  made  from  those  parts  of  the  United  States  which  are  settled,  to 
those  parts  which  are  unsettled.  If  we  afford  protection  to  the  west¬ 
ern  country,, we  will  see  it  rapidly  peopled.  Emigrations  from  some 
of  the  northern  states  have  been  lately  increased.  We  may  con¬ 
clude,  as  has  been  said,  by  a  gentleman  on  the  same  side,  (Mr.  Nich¬ 
olas,  that  those  who  emigrate  to  that  country,  will  leave  behind  them 
all  their  friends  and  connections  as  advocates  for  this  right. 

What  was  the  cause  of  those  states  being  the  champions  of  this 
right  when  the  southern  states  were  disposed  to  surrender  if*  The 
preservation  of  this  right  will  be  for  the  general  interest  of  the  union. 
The  western  country  will  be  settled  from  the  north  as  well  as  the 
south,  and  its  prosperity  will  add  to  the  strength  and  security  of  ihe 
union,  I  am  not  able  to  recollect  all  those  circumstances  which 
would  be  necesary  to  give  gentleman  a  full  view  of  the  subject.  I 
can  only  add,  that  I  conceive  that  the  establishment  of  the  new  go¬ 
vernment  will  be  the  best  possible  means  of  securing  our  rights  as 
well  in  the  western  parts,  as  elsewhere.  I.  will  not  sit  down  till  I 
make  one  more  observation  on  what  fell  from  my  honorable  friend. 
He  says,  that  the  true  difference  between  the  states  lies  in  this  cir¬ 
cumstance — that  some  are  carrying  states,  and  others  productive,  and 
that  the  operation  of  the  new  government  will  be,  that  there  will  be  a 
plurality  of  the  former  to  combine  against  the  interest  of  the  latter,  and 
that  consequently  it  will  be  dangerous  to  put  it  in  their  power  to  do 
so.  I  would  join  with  him  in  sentiments,  if  this  were  the  case.  Were 


VIRGINIA. 


Henry.] 


this  within  the  bounds  of  probability,  I  should  be  equally  alarmed, 
but  I  think  that  those  states,  which  are  contradistinguished  as  carry¬ 
ing  states,  from  the  non-importating  states,  will  be  but  few.  I  sup¬ 
pose  the  southern  states  will  be  considered  by  all,  as  under  the  lat¬ 
ter  description.  Some  other  states  have  been  mentioned  by  an  honora¬ 
ble  member  on  the  same  side,  which  are  not  considered  as  carrying 
states.  New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  can  by  no  means  be  enumera¬ 
ted  among  the  carrying  states.  They  receive  their  supplies  through 
New  York.  Here  then  is  a  plurality  of  non-importating  states.  I 
ceuld  add  another,  if  necessary.  Delaware  though  situated  upon  the. 
water,  is  upon  the  list  of  non-carrying  states.  I  might  say  that  a 
great  part  of  New  Hampshire  is  so.  I  believe  a  majority  of  the 
people  of  that  state  receive  their  supplies  from  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Connecticut.  Might  I  not  add  all  those  spates  which 
will  be  admitted  hereafter  into  the  union!  These  will  be  non-car- 
r}dng  states,  and  will  support  Virginia  in  case  the  carrying  states 
will  attempt  to  combine  against  the  rest.  This  objection  must  there¬ 
fore  fall  to  the  ground.  My  honorable  friend  has  made  several  oth¬ 
er  remarks,  but  I  will  defer  saying  any  more  till  we  come  to  those 
parts  to  whieh  his  objections  refer. 

Mr.  HENRY.  Mr.  Chairman, -once  more  I  find  it  necessary  to 
trespass  on  your  patience.  An  honorable,  gentleman  several  days 
ago  observed,  that  the  great  object  of  this  government,  was  justice. 
We  were  told  before,  that  the  greater  consideration  was  union. 
However,  the  consideration  of  justice  seems  to  have  been  what  in¬ 
fluenced  his  mind  when  he  made  strictures  on  the  proceedings  of 
the  Virginia  Assembly.  I  thought  the  reasons  of  that  transaction 
had  been  sufficiently  explained. 

It  is  exceedingly  painful  to  me  to  be  objecting,  but  I  must  make 
a  few  observations.  I  shall  not  again  review  the  catalogue  of  dan¬ 
gers  which  the  honorable  gentleman  entertained  us  with.  They  ap¬ 
pear  to  me  absolutely  imaginary.  They  have,  in  my  conception, 
been  proved  to  be  such. 

But  sure  I  am,  that  the  dangers  of  this  system  are  real,  whenthose 
who  have  no  similar  interests  with  the  people  of  this  country,  are  to 
legislate  for  us — when  our  dearest  interests  are  left  in  the  power  of 
those  whose  advantage  it  may  be  to  infringe  them.  How  will  the 
quotas  of  troops  be  furnished!  Hated  as-  requisitions  are,  your  fede¬ 
ral  officers  cannot  collect  troops,  like  dollars,  and  carry  them  i» 
their  pockets.  You  must  make  those  abominable  requisitions  for 
them,  and  the  scale  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  your  blacks,, 
as  well  as  your  whites,  unless  they  violate  the  constiutional  rule  oi 
apportionment.  This  is  not  calculated  to  rouse  the  fears  of  the  peo¬ 
ple.  It  is  founded  in  truth.  How  oppressive  and  dangerous  musi. 


|h)0  DEBATES.  [Henby. 

1 

this  be  to  the  southern  states  who  alone  have  slaves?  This  will 
render  their  proportion  infinitely  greater  than  that  of  the  northern 
states.  It  has  been  openly  avowed  that  this  shall  be  the  rule.  I 
will  appeal  to  the  judgments  of  the  committees,  whether  there  be 
danger.  '1  he  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  there  was  no  prece¬ 
dent  for  this  American  revolution.  We  have  precedents  in-  abun¬ 
dance.  They  have  been  drawn  from  Great  Britain.  Tyranny  has 
arisen  there,  in  the  same,  manner  in  which  it  was  introduced  among 
theDutch.  The  tyranny  of  Philadelphia,  maybe  like  the  tyranny 
«f  George  the  III.  I  believe  this  similitude  will  be  incontestibly 
proved  before  we  conclude. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  endeavored  to  explain  the  opinion 
of  Mr  Jefferson,  our  common  friend,  into  an  advice  to  adopt  this  new 
government.  Wliat  are  his  sentiments?  He  wishes  nine  states  to 
adopt,  and  that  four  states  may  be  found  somewhere  to  reject  it.  Now, 
Sir,  I  say,  if  we  pursue  his  advice,  what  are  we  to  do*  To  prefer 
form  to  substance?  For,  give  me  leave  to  ask  what  is  the  substan¬ 
tial  part  of  his  counsel?  It  is,  Sir,  that  four  states  should  reject* 
They  tell  us,  that  from  the  most  authentic  accounts,  New  Hampshire 
will  adopt  it.  When  I  denied  this,  gentlemen  said  they  were  abso¬ 
lutely  certain  of  it.  Where  then  will  four  states  be  found  to  reject, 
if  we  adopt  it?  If  we  do,  the  counsel  of  this  enlightened  and  wor¬ 
thy  countryman  of  ours,  will  be  thrown  away,  and  for  what?  He 
wishes  to  secure  amendments  and  a  bill  of  rights,  if  I  am  not  mista- 
ken.  1  speak  from  the  best  information,  atid  if  wrong,  1  beg  to  be 
put  right.  His  amendments  go  to  that  despised  thing,  called  a  bill 
of  rights ,  and  all  the  rights  which  are  dear  to  human  nature — trial 
by  jury,  the  liberty  of  religion,  and  the  press,  &c.  Do  not  gentle¬ 
men  see,  that  if  we  adopt,  under  the  idea  of  following  Mr.  Jefferson’s 
opinion,  we  amuse  ourselves  with  the  shadow,  while  the  substance 
is  given  away?  If  Virginia  be  for  adoption,  what  states  will  be  left 
of  sufficient  respectability  and  importance,  to  secure  amendments  by 
their  rejection?  As  to  North  Carolina,  it  is  a  poor  despised  place.  Itg 
dissent  will  not  have  influence  to  introduce  any  amendments. 
Where  is  the  American  spiiit  of  liberty?  Where  will  you  find  at¬ 
tachment  to  the  rights  of  mankind,  when  Massachusetts,  the  great 
northen  state,  Pennsylvania  the  great  middle  state,  and  Virginia, 
the  great  southern  state,  shall  have  adopted  this  government?  Where 
will  you  find  magnanimity  enough  to  reject  it?  Should  the  remain¬ 
ing  states  have  this  magnanimity,  thpy  will  not  have  sufficient  weight, 
to  have  the  government  altered. — Tnis  state  has  weight  and  impor* 
lance.  Her  example  will  have  powerful  influence — her  rejection 
<will  procure  amendments.  Shall  wre  by  our  adoption,  hazard  the 
Joss  o,f  amendments?  Shall  we  forsake  that  importance  and  respeev 


VIRGINIA, 


301 


Hkxrit.] 

lability  which  our  station  in  America  commands,  in  hopes  that  re¬ 
lief  will  come  from  an  obscure  part  of  the  union?  I  hope  my  corni" 
trymen  will  spurn  at  the  idea.  The  necessity  of  amendments  is  uni¬ 
versally  admitted.  It  is  a  word  which  is  ie-echoed  from  every  part 
of  the  continent.  A  majority  ot  those  who  hear  me,  think  amend¬ 
ments  are  neeessary.  Policy  tells  us  they  are  necessary.  Reason, 
self-preservalion,  and  every  idea  of  propriety,  powerfully  urge  us  to 
secure  the  dearest  rights  of  human  nature — shall  we,  in  direct  viola¬ 
tion  of  these  principles,  rest  this  security  upon  the  uncertainty  of  its 
being  obtained  by  a  few  states  more  weak,  and  less  respectable  than 
ourselves — and  whose  virtue  and  magnanimity  may  be  overborne  by 
the  example  of  so  many  adopting  states?  Poor  Rhode  Island  and 
North  Carolina,  and  even  New  York,  surrounded  with  federal  walls 
on  every  side,  may  not  be  magnanimous  enough  to  reject,  and  if 
they  do  reject  it,  they  will  have  but  little  influence  to  obtain  amend¬ 
ments.  I  ask,  if  amendments  be  necessary,  from  whence  can  they 
be  so  properly  proposed  as  fiom  this  state?  The  example  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  is  a  powerful  thing,  particularly  with  respect  to  North  Carolina 
whose  supplies  must  come  through  Virginia.  Every  possible  op¬ 
portunity  of  procuring  amendments  is  gone,  our  power  and  political 
salvation  is  gone,  if  we  ratify  unconditionally.  The  important  right 
of  making  treaties  is  upon  the  most  dangerous  foundation.  The 
president,  with  a  few  senators,  possess  it  in  the  most  unlimited  man¬ 
ner,  without  any  real  responsibility,  if  from  sinister  views  they 
should  think  proper  to  abuse  it..  For  they  may  keep  all  their  mea¬ 
sures  in  the  most  profound  secrecy,  as  long  as  they  please.  Were 
we  not  told  that  war  was  the  case  wherein  secrecy  was  the  most 
necessary?  But  by  the  paper  on  your  table,  their  secrecy  is  not  lim¬ 
ited  to  this  case  only.  It  is  as  unlimited  and  unbounded  as  their  pow¬ 
ers.  Under  the  abominable  veil  of  political  secrecy  and  contrivance 
your  most  valuable  rights  may  be  sacrificed  by  a  most  corrupt  fac¬ 
tion,  without  having  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  who  injured  you. 
They  are  bound  by  honor  and  conscience  to  act  with  integrity,  but 
they  are  under  no  constitutional  restraint.  The  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  which  is  of  so  much  importance  to  the  happiness  of  the 
of  this  country,  may  be  lost  by  the  operation  of  that  paper.  There 
are  seven  states  now  decidedly  opposed  to  this  navigation.  If  it  be 
of  the  highest  consequence  to  know  who  they  are  who  shall  have 
voted  its  relinquishment,  the  federal  veil  of  secrecy  will  prevent  that 
discovery.  We  may  labor  under  the  magnitude  of  our  miseries  with¬ 
out  knowing  or  being  able  to  punish  those  who  produced  them.  I 
did  not  wish  that  transactions,  relative  tc>  treaties  should,  when  un¬ 
finished,  be  exposed;  but  it  should  be  known  after  they  were  conclu¬ 
ded,  who  hud  advised  them  to  be  made,  in  order  to  secure  some  d»- 


302  DEBATES.  [Hsnrt. 

gree  of  certainty  that  the  public  interest  shall  be  consulted  in  their 
formation. 

We  are  told  that  all  powers,  not  given,  are  reserved.  I  am  sorry 
to  bring  forth  hacknejred  observations.  But,  Sir,  important  truth 
lose  nothing  of  their  validity  or  weight,  by  frequency  of  repetition. 
The  English  history  is  frequently  recurred  to  by  gentlemen.  Let 
us  advert  to  the  conduct  of  the  people  of  that  country.  The  people 
of  England  lived  without  a  declaration  of  rights,  till  the  war  in  the 
time  of  Charles  1.  That  king  made  usurpations  upon  the  rights  of 
the  people.  Those  rights  were  in  a  great  measure  before  that  time 
undefined.  Power  and  privilege  then  depended  on  implication  and 
logical  discussion.  Though  the  declaration  of  rights  was  obtained 
from  that  king,  his  usurpations  cost  him  his  life.  The  limits  be¬ 
tween  the  liberty  of  the  people,  and  the  prerogative  of  the  king, were 
still  not  clearly  defined. 

The  rights  of  the  people  continued  tp  be,  violated  till  the  Stuart 
family  was  banished  in  the  year  1688.  The  people  of  England 
magnanimously  defended  their  rights,  banished  the  tyrant,  and  pre¬ 
scribed  to  William  prince  of  Orange,  by  the  bill  of  rights,  on  what 
terms  he  should  reign.  And  this  bill  of  rights  put  an  end  to  all  con¬ 
struction  and  implication.  Before  this,  sir,  the  situation  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  liberty  of  England  was  dreadful.  For  upwards  of  a  century  the 
nation  was  involved  in  every  kind  of  calamity,  till  the  bill  of  rights 
put  an  end  to  all,  by  defining  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  lim¬ 
iting  the  king’s  prerogative.  Give  me  leave  to  add  (if  I  can  add 
any  thing  to  so  splendid  an  example)  the  conduct  of  the  American 
people.  They,  sir,  thought  a  bill  of  rights  necessary.  It  is  al- 
legded  that  several  states,  in  the  formation  of  their  government 
omitted  a  bill  of  rights.  To  this  I  answer,  that  they  had  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  a  bill  of  rights  contained  in  their  constitutions,  which  is 
the  same  thing.  I  believe  that  Connecticut  has  preserved  by  her 
constitution  her  royal  charter,  which  clearly  defines  and  secures  the 
great  rights  of  mankind — secures  to  us  the  great  important  rights  of 
humanity,  and  I  care  not  in  what  form  it  is  done. 

Of  what  ari vantage  is  it  to  the  American  congress  to  take  away 
this  great  and  general  security]  I  ask  of  what  advantage  is  it  t® 
the  public  or  to  congress,  to  drag  an  unhappy  debtor,  not  for  the  sake 
of  justice,  but  to  gratify  the  malice  of  the  plaintiff,  with  his  witnes¬ 
ses  to  the  federal  court,  from  a  great  distance!  What  was  the  prin¬ 
ciple  that  actuated  the  convention  in  proposing  to  put  such  danger¬ 
ous  powers  in  the  hands  of  any  one?  Why  is  the  trial  by  jury  ta¬ 
ken  away?  All  the  learned  Arguments  that  have  been  used  on  this 
occasion  do  not  prove  that  it  is  secured.  Even  the  advocates  for  the 
.plan  do  not, all  concur  in  the  certainty  of  its  security.  Wherefore  is 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


303 

religious  liberty  not  secured?  One  honorable  gentleman,  who  favors 
adoption,  said  that  he  had  had  his  fears  on  the  subject.  If  I  can 
well  recollect,  he  informed  us  that  he  was  perfectly  satisfied  by  the 
powers  of  reasoning  (with  which  he  is  so  happily  endowed)  that 
those  fears  were  not  well  grounded. — There  is  many  a  religious  man 
who  knows  nothing  of  argumentative  reasoning ;  there  are  many  of 
our  most  worthy  citizens,  who  cannot  go  through  all  the  labyrinths  of 
syllogistic  argumentative  deductions,  when  they  think  that  the  rights 
of  conscience  are  invaded.  This  sacred  right  ought  not  to  depend 
on  constructive  logical  reasoning. 

When  we  see  men  of  such  talents  and  learning,  compelled  to  use 
their  utmost  abililies  to  convince  themselves  that  there  is  no  danger, 
is  it  not  sufficient  to  make  us  tremble?  Is  it  not  sufficient  to  fill  the 
minds  of  the  ignorant  part  of  men  with  fear?  If  gentlemen  believe 
that  the  apprehensions  of  men  will  be  quieted,  they  are  mistaken  : 
since  our  best  informed  men  are  in  doubt  with  respect  to  the  securi¬ 
ty  of  our  rights.  Those  who  are  not  so  well  informed  will  spurn  at 
the  government.  When  our  common  citizens,  who  are  not  posses¬ 
sed  with  such  extensive  knowledge  and  abilities,  are  called  upon  to 
change  their  bill  of  rights,  (which  in  plain  unequivocal  terms,  se¬ 
cures  their  most  valuable  rights  and  privileges)  for  construction  and 
implication,  will  they  implicitly  acquiesce?  Our  declaration  of  rights 
tells  us,  “  That  all  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent,  &c.” 
(Here  Mr.  Henry  read  the  declaration  of  rights.)  Will  they  ex¬ 
change  these  rights  for  local  reasons?  If  you  had  a  thousand  acres 
of  land,  dependent  on  this,  would  you  be  satisfied  with  logical  con¬ 
struction?  Would  you  depend  upon  a  title  of  so  disputable  a  nature? 
The  present  opinions  of  individuals  will  be  buried  iu  entire  oblivion 
when  those  rights  will  be  thought  of.  That  sacred  and  lovely  thing 
religion,  ought  not  to  rest  on  the  ingenuity  of  local  deduction.  Ho¬ 
ly  religion,  sir,  will  be  prostituted  to  the  lowest  purposes  of  human 
policy.  What  has  been  more  productive  of  mischief  among  mankind 
than  religious  disputes?  Then  here,  sir,  is  a  foundation  for  such  dis¬ 
putes,  when  it  requires  learning  and  logical  deduction  to  perceive 
that  religious  liberty  is  secure. 

The  honorable  member  told  us  that  he  had  doubts  with  respeot  to 
the  judiciary  department.  I  hope  those  doubts  will  be  explained. 
He  told  us  that  his*object  was  union.  I  admit  that  the  reality  of 
union  and  not  the  name,  is  the  object  which  most  merits  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  every  friend  to  his  country.  He  told  you  that  you  should  hear 
many  great  sounding  words  on  our  side  of  the  question.  We  have 
heard  the  words  Union  from  him.  1  have  heard  no  word  so  often 
pronounced  in  this  house  as  he  did  this.  I  admit  that  the  American 
union  is  dear  to  every  man- — I  admit  that  every  man  who  has  three 


DEBATES. 


[Hemhy*. 


grains  of  information,  must  know  and  think  that  union  is  the  bestof 
ail  thing's.  But  as  I  said  before,  we  must  not  mistake  the  end  for 
the  means.  If  he  can  shew  that  the  lights  of  the  union  are  secure? 
we  will  consent.  It  has  been  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  they  are 
not  spcured.  It  sounds  mighty  prettily  to  gentlemen  to  curse  paper 
money  and  honestly  pay  debts.  But  apply  to  the  situation  of  Amer¬ 
ica,  and  you  v/ill  find  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  contracts? 
whereof  equity  forbids  an  exact  literal  performance.  Pass  that  go¬ 
vernment,  and  you  will  be  bound  hand  and  foot.  There  was  an  im¬ 
mense  quantity  of  depreciated  continental  paper  money  in  circula¬ 
tion  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war.  This  money  is  in  the  hands  of 
individuals  to  this  day.  The  holders  of  this  money  may  call  for  the 
nominal  value,  il  this  government  be  adopted.  This  state  may  be 
compelled  to  pay  her  proportion  of  that  currency  pound  for  pound. 
Pass  this  government  and  you  will  be  carried  to  the  federal  court  (if 
I  understand  that  paper  right)  and  you  will  be  compelled  to  pay  shil¬ 
ling  for  shilling.  I  doubt  on  the  subject,  at  least  as  a  public  man,  1 
ought  to  have  doubts.  A  state  may  be  sued  in  the  federal  court  by 
the  paper  on  your  table.  It  appears  to  me  then,  that  the  holder  of 
the  paper  money  may  require  shilling  for  shilling.  If  there  be  any 
latent  remedy  to  prevent  this,  l  hope  it  will  be  discovered. 

The  precedent,  with  respect  to  the  union  between  England  and 
Scotland,  does  not  hold.  The  union  of  Scotland  speaks  in  plain  and 
direct  terms.  Their  privileges  were  particularly  secured.  It  was 
expressly  provided,  that  they  should  retain  their  own  particular  laws. 
Their  nobles  have  a  right  to  choose  representatives  to  the  number  of 
sixteen.  1  might  thus  go  on  and  specify  particulais,  but  it  will  suf¬ 
fice  to  observe  generally,  that  their  rights  and  privileges  were  ex¬ 
pressly  and  unequivocally  reserved.  The  power  of  direct  taxation 
was  not  given  up  by  the  Scotch  people.  There  is  no  trait  in  that 
union  which  will  maintain  their  arguments.  In  order  to  do  this,  they 
ought  to  have  proved  that  Scotland  united  without  securing  their 
rights,  and  afterwards  got  that  security  by  subsequent  amendments. 
Did  the  people  of  Scotland  do  this!  No,  sir,  like  a  sensible  people 
they  trusted  nothing  to  hazard.  If  they  have  but  forty-five  mem¬ 
bers,  and  those  be  often  corrupted,  these  defects  will  be  great¬ 
er  here.  The  number  will  be  smaller,  and  they  will  be  consequent¬ 
ly  the  more  easily  corrupted.  Another  honorable  gentleman  advises 
us  to  give  this  power,  in  order  to  exclude  the  necessity  of  going  to 
war.  He  wishes  to  establish  national  credit  I  presume — and  imag¬ 
ines  that  if  a  nation  has  public  faith,  and  shews  a  disposition  to 
comply  with  her  engagements,  she  is  safe  among  ten  thousand  dan¬ 
gers*  If  the  honorable  gentleman  can  prove  that  this  paper  is  cal- 
tulatod  to  give  us  public  faith,  I  will  be  satisfied.  But  if  you  be  in 


Hknbt.] 


VIRGINIA. 


305 


■constant  preparation  for  war,  on  such  airy  and  imaginary  grounds 
as  the  mere  possibility  of  danger,  your  government  must  be  milita- 
Ty,  which  will  be  inconsistent  with  the  enjoyment  of  liberty. 

But,  Sir,  we  must  become  formidable,  and  have  a  strong  govern¬ 
ment  to  protect  us  from  the  British  nation.  Will  the  paper  on  the 
table  prevent  the  attacks  of  the  British  navy,  or  enable  us  to  raise 
fleet  equal  to  the  British  fleet  ?  The  British  have  the  strongest 
fleet  in  Europe,  and  can  strike  any  where.  It  is  the  utmost  folly  to 
•conceive  that  the  paper  can  have  such  an  operation.  It  will  be  no 
less  so  to  attempt  to  raise  a  powerful  fleet.  With  respect  to  requi¬ 
sitions,  I  beseech  gentlemen  to  consider  the  importance  of  the  sub¬ 
ject.  We  who  are  for  amendments  propose,  (as  has  been  frequently 
mentioned)  that  a  requisition  shall  be  made  for  d62OO,0OO,  for 
instance,  instead  of  direct  taxation,  and  that  if  it  be  complied  with, 
then  it  shall  he  raised  by  direct  taxes.  We  do  not  wish  to  have 
strength  to  refuse  to  pay  them,  but  to  possess  the  power  of  raising 
the  taxes  in  the  most  easy  mode  for  the  people.  But,  says  he,  you 
may  delay  us  by  this  mode.  Let  us  see  if  there  be  not  sufficient  to 
counterbalance  this  evil.  The  oppression  arising  from  taxation  is 
not  from  the  amount,  but  from  the  mode — a  thorough  acquaintance 
with  the  condition  of  the  people,  is- necessary  to  a  just  distribution 
of  taxes.  The  whole  wisdom  of  the  science  of  government,  with 
respect  to  taxation  consistsin  selecting  that  mode  of  collection  which 
wll  best  accommodate  the  convenience  of  the  people.  When  you  come 
to  tax  a  great  country,  you  will  find  that  ten  men  are  too  few  to  set 
tie  the  manner  of  collection.  One  capital  advantage,  which  will 
result  from  the  proposed  alternative,  is  this,  that  there  will  be  ne¬ 
cessary  communications  between  your  ten  members  in  congress,  and 
your  170  representatives  here.  If  it  goes  through  the  hands  of  the 
latter,  they  will  knew  how  much  the  citizens  can  pay,  and  by  look- 
ingat  the  paper  on  your  table,  they  will  know  how  much  they  ought 
to  pay.  No  man  is  possessed  of  sufficient  information  to  know  ho 
much  we  can  or  ought  to  pay. 

We  might  also  remonstrate,  if  by  mistake  or  design,  they  should 
call  for  a  greater  sum  than  our  proportion.  After  a  remonstrance, 
and  a  free  investigation  between  our  representatives  here,  and  those 
in  congress,  the  error  would  be  removed. 

Another  valuable  thing,  which  it  will  produce,  is,  that  the  people 
will  pay  the  taxes 'cheerfully.  It  is  supposed,  that  this  would  oc¬ 
casion  a  wasto  of  limp,  and  be  an  injury  to  public  credit.  This 
would  only  happen  if  requisitions  should  not  be  complied  with.  In 
this  ease  the  delay  would  be  compensated  by  the  payment  of  inter¬ 
est,  which  with  the  addition  of  the  credit  of  the  stats  to  that  cf  the 
general  government,  would  in  a  great  measure  obvia'ethis  objection. 


DEBATES. 


306 


[Henry. 


But  if  it  had  all  the  force  which  it  is  supposed  to  have,  it  would  not 
he  adequate  to  the  evils  of  direct  taxation.  But  there  is  every  prob¬ 
ability  that  requisitions  would  be  then  complied  with.  Would  it 
not  then  be  our  interest,  as  well  as  duty,  to  comply!  After  non- 
compliance,  there  would  be  a  general  acquiescence  in  the  exercise 
of  this  power.  We  are  fond  of  giving  power,  at  least  power  which 
is  constitutional.  Here  is  an  option  to  pay  according  to  your  own 
mode  or  otherwise.  If  you  give  probability  fair  play,  you  must 
conclude  that  they  would  be  complied  with.  Would  the  assembly 
of  Virginia  by  refusal,  destroy  the  country  and  plunge  the  people  in 
miseries  and  distress!  If  you  give  your  reasoning  faculty  fair  play, 
you  cannot  but  know,  that  payment  must  be  made,  when  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  a  refusal,  would  be  an  accumulation  of  inconveniences  to 
the  people.  Then  they  say,  that  if  requisitions  be  not  complied 
with,  in  case  of  a  war,  the  destruction  of  the  country  may  be  the 
consequence;  that  therefore,  we  ought  to  give  the  power  of  taxation 
to  the  government  to  enable  it  to  protect  us.  Would  not  this  be 
another  reason  for  complying  with  requisitions,  to  prevent  the  coun¬ 
try  from  being  destroyed!  You  tell  us,  that  unless  requisitions  be 
complied  with,  your  commerce  is  gone.  The  prevention  of  this  also, 
will  be  an  additional  reason  to  comply. 

He  tells  us,  that  responsibility  is  secured  by  direct  taxation. 
Responsibility  instead  of  being  inereased,  will  be  lost  forever  by  it. 
In  our  state  government,  our  repiesentatives  may  be  severally  in¬ 
structed  by  their  constituents.  There  are  no  persons  to  counteract 
their  operations.  They  can  have  no  excuse  for  deviating  from  our 
instructions.  In  the  general  government  other  men  have  power 
over  the  business.  When  oppressions  may  take  place,  our  repre¬ 
sentatives  may  tell  us,  We  contended  for  your  interest,  but  we 
could  not  carry  our  point,  because  the  representatives  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  &c.  were  against  us. 
Thus,  Sir,  you  may  see  there  is  no  real  responsibility.  He  further 
said,  that  there  was  such  a  contrariety  of  interests,  as  to  hinder  a 
consolidation.  I  will  only  make  one  remark — there  is  a  variety  of 
interests — some  of  the  stales  owe  a  great  deal  on  account  of  paper 
money — others  very  little — some  of  the  northern  states  have  collec¬ 
ted  and  barrelled  up  paper  money.  Virginia  has  sent  thither  her 
cash  long  ago.  There  is  little  or  none  of  the  continental  paper  mo¬ 
ney  retained  in  this  state.  Is  it  not  their  business  to  appreciate  this 
money!  Yes,  and  it  will  be  your  business  to  prevent  it.  But  there 
will  be  a  majority  against  you,  and  you  will  be  obliged  to  pay  your 
share  of  this  money,  in  its  nominal  value.  It  has  been  said  by 
several  gentlemen,  that  the  freeness  of  elections  would  be  promoted 
by  throwing  the  country  into  large  districts.  I  contend,  Sir,  that  it 


) 


Henr>'-1  VIRGINIA.  307 

will  have  a  contrary  effect.  It  will  destroy  that  connection  that 
ought  to  subsist  between  the  electors  and  the  elected.  If  your  elec¬ 
tions  be  by  districts,  instead  of  counties,  the  people  will  not  be  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  candidates.  They  must, therefore,  be  directed  in  the 
elections  by  those  who  know  them.  So  that,  instead  of  a  confidential 
connection  between  the  electors  and  the  elected,  they  will  be  absolute¬ 
ly  unacquainted  with  each  other.  A  common  man  must  ask  a  man  of 
influence  how  I16  is  to  proceed,  and  for  whom  he  must  vote.  The  elec¬ 
ted,  therefore,  wall  be  careless  of  the  interest  of  the  electors.  It 
will  be  a  common  job  to  extort  the  suffrages  of  the  common  people 
for  the  most  influential  characters.  The  same  men  may  be  repeat¬ 
edly  elected  by  these  means.  This,  Sir,  instead  of  promoting  the 
freedom  of  elections,  leads  us  to  an  aristocracy.  Consider  the  mode 
■of  elections  in  England.  Behold  the  progress  of  an  election  in  an 
English  shire.  A  man  of  an  enormous  fortune  will  spend  £30,000 
or  £40,000  to  get  himself  elected.  This  is  frequently  the  case. 
Will  the  honorable  gentleman  say,  that  a  poor  man,  as  enlightened 
as  tny  man  in  the  Island,  lias  an  equal  chance  with  a  rich  man  to  be 
elected?  lie  will  stand  no  chance,  though  he  may  have  the  finest 
understanding  of  any  man  in  the  shire.  It  will  be  so  here,  W here 
is  the  chance  that  a  poor  man  can  come  forward  with  the  rich?  The 
honorable  gentleman  will  find  that  instead  of  supporting  democrati- 
cal  principles,  it  goes  absolutely  to  destroy  them. 

The  state  governments,  says  he,  will  possess  greater  advantages 
than  the  general  government,  and  will  consequently  prevail.  His 
opinion  and  mine  are  diamatrically  opposite.  Bring  forth  the  federal 
allurements,  and  compare  them  with  the  poot  contemptible  things 
that  the  state  legislatures  can  bring  forth.  On  the  part  of  the  state 
legislatures,  there  are  justices  of  the  peace  and  militia  officers-— and 
even  these  justices  and  officers,  are  bound  by  oath  in  favor  of  the 
constitution.  A  constable  is  the  only  man  who  is  not  obliged  to 
swear  paramount,  in  allegiance  to  this  beloved  congress.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  rich,  fat  federal  emoluments — your  rich,  snug 
fine,  fat  federal  offices — the  number  of  collectors  of  taxes  and  ex¬ 
cises,  will  out  number  any  thing  from  the  states.  Who  can  cope 
with  the  excisemen  and  taxmen?  There  are  none  in  this  country 
who  can  cope,  with  this  class  of  men  alone.  But,  Sir,  is  this  the 
only  danger.2  Would  to  Heaven  that  it  were.  If  we  are  to  ask 
which  will  last  the  longest — the  state  or  the  general  government, 
,you  must  take  an  army  and  a  navy  into  the  account.  Lay  these 
things  together,  and  add  to  the  enumeration  the  superior  abilities  of 
those  who  manage  the  general  government. 

Can  then  the  state  goveinments  look  it  in  the  face?  You  dan? 
not  look  it  in  the  face  now,  when  it  is  but  in  embryo.  The  infip- 

* 


.103 


DEBATES. 


[Henry*. 


©nee  of  this  government  will  be  such,  that  yon  never  can  got’amend- 
nienls;  for  if  you  propose  alterations  you  will  affront  them.  Let 
the  honorable  gentleman  consider  all  these  things  and  say,  whether 
the  state  governments  will  last  as  long  as  the  federal  government. 
With  respect  to  excises,  I  can  never  endure  them.  They  have  been 
productive  of  the  most  intolerable  oppressions  every  where.  Make 
a  probable  calculation  of  the  expense  attending  the  legislative,  exe¬ 
cutive*  and  judiciary.  You  will  find  that  there  must  bean  immense 
increase  of  taxes.  We  are, the  same  mass  of  people  we  were  before. 
In  the  same  circumstances — the  same  pockets  afe  to  pay — the  ex* 
penses  are  to  be  increased — what  will  enable  us  to  bear  this  aug¬ 
mentation  of  taxes?  The  mere  form  of  government  will  not  do  it. 
A  plain  understanding  cannot  conceive  how  the  taxes  can  be  dimin¬ 
ished,  when  our  expenses  are  augmented,  and  the  means  of  paying 
them  not  increased. 

With  respect  to  our  tax-laws,  we  have  purchased  a  little  know¬ 
ledge  by  sad  experience  upon  the  subject.  Reiterated  experiments 
have  taught  us  what  can  alleviate  the  distresses  and  suit  the  conve¬ 
nience  of  the  people.  But  we  are  now  to  throw  away  that  system, 
by  which  we  have  acquired  this  knowledge,  and  send  ten  men  to 
legislate  for  us. 

The  honorable  gentleman  was  pleased  to  say,  that  the  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  people  was  the  vital  principle  of  this  government.  I 
will  readily  agree  that  it  ought  to  be  so.  But  I  contend  that  this 
principle  is  only  nominally,  and  not  substantially  to  be  found  there. 
We  contended  with  the  British  about  representation,  they  offered 
us  such  a  representation  as  congress  now  does.  They  called  it  a 
virtual  representation.  If  you  look  at  that  paper  you  will  find  it  so 
there.  Is  there  but  a  virtual  representation  in  the  upper  house? 
The  states  are  represented  as  states ,  by  two  senators  each.  This  is 
virtual,  not  actual.  They  encounter  you  with  Rhode  Island  and 
Delaware.  This  is  not  an  actual  representation.  What  does  the 
term  representation  signify?  It  means  that  a  certain  district — a  cer¬ 
tain  association  of  men  should  be  represented  in  the  government, 
for  certain  ends.  These  ends  ought  not  to  be  impeded  or  obstructed 
in  any  manner.  Here,  Sir,  this  populous  state  has  not  an  adequate 
a-hare  of  legislative  influence.  The  two  petty  states  of  Rhode  Island 
and  Delaware,  which  together  are  infinitely  inferior  to  this  state,  in 
extent  and  population,  have  double  her  weight  and  can  counteract 
her  interest.  1  say  that  the  representation  in  the  senate,  as  appli¬ 
cable  to  slates,  is  not  actual.  Representation  is  not  therefore  the 
vital  principle  of  this  government.  So  far  it  is  wrong. 

Rulcyr.s  are  the  servants  and  agents  of  the  people — the  people  arc 

heir  masters — does  the  new  constitution  acknowledge  this  prinet- 


) 


Henry.]  VIRGINIA.  309 

pie?  Trial  by  jury  is  the  best  appendage  of  freedom.  Does  it  se¬ 
cure  this?  Does  it  secure  the  other  great  rights  of  mankind?  Our 
own  constitution  preserves  these  principles.  The  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  contributed  to  form  that  constitution :  the  applauses  so  justly 

due  to  it  should,  in  my  opinion,  go  to  the  condemnation  of  they 
paper. 

With  respect  to  the  failures  and  errcis  ol  our  government,  they 
might  have  happened  in  any  government.  I  do  not  justify  what  me¬ 
rits  censure,  but  I  shall  not  degrade  my  country.  As  to  deviations 
from  justice,  I  hope  they  will  be  attributed  to  the  errors  of  the  head, 
and  not  to  those  of  the  heart. 

The  honorable  gentleman  did  our  judictary  honor  in  saying  that 
they  had  firmness  to  counteract  the  legislature  in  some  cases.  Yes, 
Sir,  our  judges  opposed  the  acts  of  the  legislature.  We  have  this 
land-mark  to  guide  us.  They  had  fortitude  to  declare  that  they 
were  the  judiciary,  and  would  oppose  unconstitutional  acts,  ^re 
you  sure  that  your  federal  judiciary  will  act  thus?  Is  that  judiciary 
so  well  constructed  and  so  independent  of  the  other  branches,  as 
our  state  judiciary?  Where  are  your  land-marks  in  this  govern¬ 
ment?  I  will  be  bold  to  say  you  cannot  find  any  in  it.  I  take  it  as 
the  highest  encomium  on  this  country,  that  the  acts  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture,  if  unconstitutional,  are  liable  to  be  opposed  by  the  judiciary. 

Then  the  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  the  two  judiciaries  and 
legislatures,  would  go  in  a  parallel  line  and  never  interfere — that  as 
long  as  each  was  confined  to  its  proper  objects,  that  there  would  be 
no  danger  of  interference — that  like  two  parallel  lines  as  long  as 
they  continued  in  their  parallel  direction  they  never  would  meet. 
With  submission  to  the  honorable  gentleman’s  opinion,  I  assert  that 
there  is  danger  of  interference,  because  no  line  is  drawn  between 

O  1 

the  powers  of  the  two  governments  in  many  instances  :  and,  where 
there  is  a  line,  there  is  no  check  to  prevent  the  one  from  encroach^ 
log  upon  the  powers  or  the  other. 

I  therefore  contend  that  they  must  interfere,  and  that  this  inter¬ 
ference  must  subvert  the  state  government,  as  being  less  powerful. 
Unless  your  government  have  checks,  it  must  inevitably  terminate 
iu  the  destruction  of  your  privileges.  I  will  be  bold  to  say,  that 
the  British  government  has  real  checks.  I  was  attacked  by  gentle- 
tlemen,  as  if  I  had  said  that  I  loved  the  British  government  better 
than  our  own.  I  never  said  so.  1  said  that  if  I  were  obliged  to  relin¬ 
quish  a  republican  government,  I  would  choose  the  British  monar¬ 
chy.  I  never  gave  the  preference  to  the  British  or  any  other  go¬ 
vernment,  when  compaied  to  that  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
assisted  to  form.  I  was  constrained  to  say  what  I  said.  When  two 
disagreeable  objects  present  themselves  to  the  mirid,  we  choose  that 
which  has  the  least  deformity. 


310 


DEBATES. 


[Henrx^ 


As  to  the  western  country,  nowithstanding  our  representation  in 
congress,  and  notwithstanding  any  regulation  that  may  be  made  by 
congress,  it  may  be  lost.  The  seven  northern  states  are  determined 
to  give  up  the  Mississippi.  We  are  told  that  in  older  to  secure  the 
navigation  of  that  river,  it  was  necessary  to  give  it  up  for  twenty- 
five  years  to  the  Spaniards,  and  that  thereafter  we  should  enjoy  it 
forever  without  any  interruption  from  them.  This  argument  resem¬ 
bles  that  which  recommends  adopting  first  and  then  amending.  I 
think  the  reverse  of  What  the  honorable  gentleman  said  on  the  sub¬ 
ject.  Those  seven  states  are  decidedly  against  it.  He  tells  us,  that 
it  is  the  policy  of  the  whole  union  to  retain  it.  If  men  were  wise, 
virtuous,  and  honest,  we  might  depend  on  an  adherence  to  this  policy. 
Did  we  not  know  of  the  fallability  of  human  nature,  we  might  rely 
on  the  present  structure  of  this  government.  We  might  depend  that 
the  rules  of  propriety,  and  the  geheral  interest  of  the  union,  would 
ho  observed.  But  the  depraved  nature  of  man  is  well  known.  He 
has  a  natural  bias  towards  his  own  interest,  which  will  prevail  over 
every  consideration,  unless  it  be  checked-.  It  is  the  interest  and  in¬ 
clination  of  the  seven  northern  states  to  relinquish  this  river.  If  you 
enable  them  to  do  so,  will  the  mere  propriety  of  consulting  the  in¬ 
terest  of  the  other  six  states,  refrain  them  from  it?  Is  it  imagined, 
that  Spain  will,  after  a  peaceable  possession  of  it  for  thirty  years,, 
give  it  up  to  you  again.2  Can  credulity  itself  hope  that  the  Span¬ 
iards,  who  wish  to  have  it  for  that  period,  wish  to  clear  the  river  for 
you?  What  is  it  they  wish? — To  clear  the  river?  For  whom?  Amer¬ 
ica  saw  the  time  when  she  had  the  reputation  of  common  sense  at 
least!  Do  you  suppose  they  will  restore  it  to  you  after  thirty  years? 
If  you  do,  you  depart  from  that  rule.  Common  observation  tells  you 
that  it  must  be  the  policy  of  Spain  to  get  it  first,  and  then  retain  it 
forever.  If  you  give  it  up,  in  my  poor  estimation,  they  will  never 
voluntarily  restore  it.  Where  is  the  man  who  will  believe  that  after 
clearing  the  river,  strengthening  themselves,  and  increasing  the 
means  of  retaining  it,  the  Spaniards  will  tamely  surrender  it? 

With  respect  to  the  concurrent  collections  of  parochial,  county, 
and  state  taxes,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  instanced  as  a 
proof  of  the  practicability  of  the  concurrent  collection  of  taxes  by  the 
general  and  state  governments,  the  comparison  will  not  stand  exam¬ 
ination.  As  my  honorable  triend  has  said,  these  concurrent  collec¬ 
tions  come  from  one  power.  They  irradiate  from  the  same  centre. 
They  are  not  co-equal  or  co-extensive.  There  is  no  clashing  of  pow¬ 
er  between  them.  Each  is  limited  to  its  own  particular  objects,  and 
all  subordinate  to  one  supreme  controlling  power — the  legislature. 
The  county  courts  have  power  over  the  county  and  parish  collections, 
and  can  constantly  redress  any  injuries  or  oppressions  committed  by 


) 


Henry.]  VIRGINIA.  311 

the  collectors.  Will  this  be  the  case  in  the  federal  courts?  I  hope 
they  will  not  have  federal  courts  in  every  county.  If  they  will, 
the  state  courts  will  be  debased  and  stripped  of  their  cognizance,  and 
utterly  abolished.  Yet,  if  there  be  no  power  in  the  country  to  call 
them  to  account,  they  will  more  flagrantly  trample  on  your  rights. 
Does  the  honorable  gentleman  mean  that  the  thirteen  states  will 
have  thirteen  different  tax  laws?  Is  this  the  expedient  which  is  to 
he  substituted  to  the  unequal  and  unjust  one  of  uniform  taxes?  If  so, 
many  horrors  present  themselves  to  my  mind. — They  may  be  imagi¬ 
nary,  but  it  appears  to  my  mind  to  be  the  most  abominable  system 
that  could  be  imagined.  It  will  destroy  every  principle  of  Respon¬ 
sibility.  It  will  be  destructive  of  that  fellow  feeling,  and  consequent 
confidence, which  ought  to  subsist  between  the  representatives  and  the 
represented.  We  shall  then  be  taxed  b}r  those  who  bear  no  part  in  the 
taxes  themselves,  and  who  consequently  will  be  regardless  of  our  in¬ 
terest  in  imposing  them  upon  us.  The  efforts  of  our  ten  men  will  avail 
very  little  when  opposed  by  the  northern  majority.  If  our  ten  men  be 
disposed  to  sacrifice  our  interest,  we  cannot  detect  them.  Under  the 
colour  of  being  out-numbered  by  the  northern  representatives,  they 
can  always  screen  themselves.  When  they  go  to  the  general  go- 
ernment,  they  may  make  a  bargain  with  the  northern  delegates. 
They  may  agree  to  tax  our  citizens  in  any  manner  which  may  be 
proposed  by  the  northern  members ;  in  consideration  of  which  the 
latter  may  make  them  some  favorite  concessions.*  The  noithern 
states  will  never  assent  to  regulations  promotive  of  the  southern  ag¬ 
grandizement.  Notwithstanding  what  gentlemen  say  of  the  proba¬ 
ble  virtue  of  our  representatives,  I  dread  the  depravity  of  human  na¬ 
ture.  I  wish  to  guard  against  it  by  proper  checks,  and  trust  nothing 
to  accident  or  chance.  I  will  never  depend  on  so  slender  a  protec¬ 
tion  as  the  possibility  of  being  represented  by  virtuous  men. 

Will  not  thirteen  different  objects  of  taxation  in  the  thirteen  differ¬ 
ent  states,  involve  us  in  an  infinite  number  of  inconveniences  and 
absolute  confusion?  There  is  a  striking  difference,  and  great  contra¬ 
riety  of  interests  between  the  states.  They  are  naturally  divided  into 
carrying  and  productive  states.  This  is  an  actual  existing  distinc¬ 
tion  which  cannot  be  altered.  The  former  are  more  numerous,  and 
must  prevail.  What  then  will  be  the  consequence  of  their  conten¬ 
ding  interests,  if  the  taxation  of  America  is  to  go  on  in  thirteen  dif¬ 
ferent  shapes?  This  government  subjects  every  thing  to  the  north¬ 
ern  majority.  Is  there  not  then  a  settled  purpose  to  check  the  sou  th¬ 
em  interest?  We  thus  put  unbounded  power  over  our  property  in 
hands  not  having  a  common  interest  with  us.  How  can  the  south- 
ern  members  prevent  the  adoption  of  the  most  oppressive  mode  of 
taxation  in  the  southern  states,  as  there  is  a  majority  in  favor  of  the 


312 


DEBATES. 


[Madisoit.. 


northern  states?  Sir,  this  is  a  picture  so  horrid,  so  wretched,  so 
dreadful,  that  I  need  no  longer  dwell  upon  it.  Mr.  Henry  then  con¬ 
cluded  by  remarking,  that  he  dreaded  the  most  iniquitous  specula¬ 
tion  and  stock-jobbing,  from  the  operation  of  such  a  system. 

Mr.  MADISON.  Mr.  Chairman,  pardon  me  for  making  a  few 
remarks  on  what  fell  from  the  honorable  gentleman  last  lip.  I  am1 
sorry  to  follow  the  example  of  gentlemen  in  deviating  from  the  rule  of 
the  house. — But  as  they  have  taken  the  utmost  latitude  in  their  oh- 
jections,  it.  is  neeessary  that  those  who  favor  the  government  should 
answer  them.  But  I  wish  as  soon  as  possible  to  take  up  the  subject 
regularly.  I  will  therefore  take  the  liberty  to  answer  some  obser¬ 
vations  which  have  been  irregularly  made,  though  they  might  be 
more  properly  answered  when  we  come  to  discuss  those  parts  of  the* 
constitution  to  which  they  respectively  refer.  I  will,  however,  post¬ 
pone  answering  some  others  till  then.  If  there  be  that  terror  in  di¬ 
rect  taxation,  that  the  states  would  comply  with  requisitions  to  guard 
against  the  federal  legislature  ;  and  if,  as  gentlemen  say,  this  state 
will  always  have  it  in  her  power  to  make  her  collections  speedily 
and  fully,  the  people  will  be  compelled  to  pay  the  same  amount  as 
quickly  and  punctually  as  if  raised  by  the  general  government. 

It  has  been  amply  proved,  that  the  general  government  can  lay 
taxes  as  conveniently  to  the  people  as  the  state  governments,  by 
imitating  the  state  systems  of  taxation.  If  the  general  government 
have  not  the  power  of  collecting-its  own  revenues,  in  the  first  in 
stance,  it  will  he  still  dependent  on  the  state  governments  in  some 
measure  :  and  the  exercise  of  this  power,  after  refusal,  will  be  ine¬ 
vitably  productive  of  injustice  and  confusion,  if  partial  compliances 
be  made  before  it  is  driven  to  assume  it.  Thus,  Sir,  without  reliev¬ 
ing  the  people  in  the  smallest  degree,  alternative  proposed  will  im¬ 
pair  the  efficacy  of  the  government,  and  will  perpetually  endange? 
the  tranquillity  of  the  union. 

The  honorable  member’s  objection  with  respect  to  requisitions  of 
troops  will  be  fully  obviated  at  another  time.  Let  it  suffice  now 
to  say,  that  it  is  altogether  unwarrantable,  and  founded  upon  a  mis¬ 
conception  of  the  paper  hefore  you.  But  the  honorable  member,  in 
order  to  influence  our  decision,  has  mentioned  the  opinion  of  a  citi¬ 
zen  who  is  an  ornament  to  this  state.  When  the  name  of  this  dis¬ 
tinguished  character  was  introduced,  I  was  much  surprised.  16  it 
come  to  this  then,  that  we  are  not  to  follow  our  own  reason?  Is  it 
proper  to  introduce  the  opinions  of  respectable  men,  not  within  thes® 
walls?  If  the  opinion  of  an  important  character  were  to  weigh  on 
this  occasion,  could  we  not  adduce  a  character  equally  great  on  our 
side?  Are  we,  who  (in  the  honorable  gentleman’s  opinion)  are  not 
to  be  governed  by  an  erring  world,  now  to  submit  to  the  opinion  of 


1 


Madison.]  VIRGINIA.  312 

a  citizen  beyond  the  Atlantic?  I  believe,  that  were  that  gentleman 
now  on  this  floor,  he  would  be  for  the  adoption  of  this  constitution. 
I  wish  his  name  had  never  been  mentioned.  I  wish  every  thing 
spoken  here,  relative  to  his  opinion,  maybe  suppressed  if  our  de¬ 
bates  should  be  published.  I  know  that  the  delicacy  of  his  feelings 
will  be  wounded,  when  he  will  see  in  print  what  has  and  may  be 
said,  concerning  him  on  this  occasion.  I  am,  in  some  measure,  ac¬ 
quainted  with  his  sentiments  on  this  subject.  It  is  not  right  forme 
to  unfold  what  he  has  informed  me.  But  I  will  venture  to  assert, 
that  the  clause  now  discussed,  is  not  objected  to  by  Mr  Jefferson. 
He  approves  of  it,  because  it  enables  the  government  to  carry,  on  its 
operations. — He  admires  several  parts  of  it,  which  have  been  repro¬ 
bated  with  vehemence  in  this  hopse.  He  is  captivated  with  the 
equality  of  suffrage  in  the  senate,  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
(Mr  Henry)  calls  the  rotten  part  of  this  constitution.  But,  what¬ 
ever  be  the  opinion  of  that  illustrious  citizen,  considerations  of  per¬ 
sonal  delicacy  should  dissuade  us  from  introducing  it  here. 

The  honorable  member  has  introduced  the  subject  of  religion. 
Religion  is  not  guarded — there  is  no  bill  of  rights  declaring  that  re- 
ligion  should  be  secure.  Is  a  bill  of  rights  a  security  for  religion? 
Would  the  bill  of  rights,  in  this  state,  exempt  the  people  from  pay¬ 
ing  for  the  support  of  one  particular  sect,  if  such  sect  were  exclu¬ 
sively  established  by  law?  If  there  were  a  majority  of  one  sect,  a 
bill  of  rights  would  be  a  poor  protection  for  liberty  Happily  for 
the  states,  they  enjoy  the  utmost  freedom  of  religion.  This  free¬ 
dom  arises  from  that  multiplicity  of  sects,  which  pervades  America, 
and  which  is  the  best  and  only  security  for  religious  liberty  in  any 
society.  For  where  there  is  such  a  variety  of  sects,  there  cannot 
be  a  majority  of  any  one  sect  to  oppress  and  persecute  the  rest. 
Fortunately  for  this  commonwealth,  a  majority  of  the  people  are  de¬ 
cidedly  against  any  exclusive  establishment — I  believe  it  to  be  so  in 
the  other  states.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  right  in  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  to  intermeddle  with  religion.  Its  least  interference  with 
it,  would  be  a  most  flagrant  usurpation.  I  can  appeal  to  my  uniform 
conduct  on  this  subject,  that  1  have  warmly  supported  religious 
freedom.  It  is  better  that  this  security  should  be  depended  upon 
from  the  general  legislature,  than  from  one  particular  state.  A  par¬ 
ticular  state  might  concur  in  one  religious  project.  But  the  United 
Btates  abound  in  such  a  variety  of  sects,  that  it  is  a  strong  security 
against  religious  persecution,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  authorise  a  con¬ 
clusion,  that  no  one  sect  will  ever  be  able  to  out  number  or  depress 
the  rest. 

I  will  not  travel  over  that  extensive  tract,  which  the  honorable 
member  has  traversed.  I  shall  not  now  take  notice  of  al|  his  de¬ 
sultory  objections.  As  occasions  arise,  I  shall  answer  thorn. 


314 


DEBATES. 


[Madisonv 

It  is  worthy  of  observation,  on  this  occasion,  that  the  honorable 
gentleman  himself,  seldom  fails  to  contract  the  arguments  of  gen¬ 
tlemen  on  that  side  of  the  question.  For  example,  he  strongly  com¬ 
plains  that  the  federal  government,  from  the  number  of  its  members* 
will  make  an  addition  to  the  public  expense,  too  formidable  to  be 
borne,  and  yet  he  and  other  gentleman  on  the  same  side,  object  that 
the  number  of  representatives  is  too  small,  though  ten  men  are  more 
than  we  are  entitled  to  under  the  existing  system!  How  can  these 
contradictions  be  reconciled?  If  we  are  to  adopt  any  efficient  go¬ 
vernment  at  all,  how  can  we  discover  or  establish  such  a  system,  if 
it  be  thus  attacked?  Will  it  be  possible  to  form  a  rational  conclu¬ 
sion  upon  contradictory  principles?  If  arguments  of  a  contradictory 
nature  were  to  be  brought  against  the  wisest  and  most  admirable 
system  to  the  formation  of  which  human  intelligence  is  competent 
it  never  could  stand  them. 

He  has  acrimoniously  inveighed  against  the  government,  because 
such  transactions  as  congress  think  require  secrecy,  may  be  con¬ 
cealed;  and  particularly  those  which  relate  to  treaties.  He  admits 
that  when  a  treaty  is  forming,  secrecy  is  proper  ;  but  urges  that 
when  actually  made,  the  public  ought  to  be  made  acquainted  with 
every  circumstance  relative  to  it.  The  policy  of  not  divulging  the 
most  important  transactions,  and  negociations  of  nations,  such  as 
those  which  relate  to  warlike  arrangements  and  treaties,  is  univer¬ 
sally  admitted.  The  congressional  proceedings  are  to  be  occasion¬ 
ally  published,  including  all  receipts  and  expenditures  of  public  mo¬ 
ney,  of  which  no  part  can  be  used,  but  in  consequence  of  appropria¬ 
tions  made  by  law.  This  is  a  security  which  we  do  not  enjoy  un¬ 
der  the  existing  system.  That  part  which  authorises  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  withhold  from  the  public  knowledge  what  in  their  judge¬ 
ment  rnay  require  secrecy,  is  imitated  from  the  confederation  ;•  that 
very  system  which  the  gentleman  advocates.  * 

No  treaty  has  been  formed,  and  I  will  undertake  to  say,  that  none 
will  be  formed  under  the  old  system,  which  will  secure  to  us  the 
actual  enjoyment  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  Our  weak¬ 
ness  precludes  us  from  it.  We  are  entitled  to  it.  But  it  is  not  un¬ 
der  an  inefficient  government  that  we  shall  be  able  to  avail  our¬ 
selves  fully  of  that  right.  I  most  conscientiously  believe,  that  it 
will  be  far  better  secured  under  the  new  government,  than  the  old, 
as  we  will  be  more  able  to  enforce  our  right.  The  people  of  Ken¬ 
tucky  will  have  an  additional  safeguard  from  the  change  of  system. 
The  strength  and  respectability  of  the  union  will  secure  them  in  tho 
enjoyment  of  that  right,  till  that  country  becomes  sufficiently  popu¬ 
lous.  When  this  happens,  they  will  be  able  to  retain  it  in  spite  of 
every  opposition. 


) 


Nicholas.]  VIRGINIA.  315 

I  can  never  admit  that  seven  states  are  disposed  to  surrender  that 
navigation.  Indeed  it  never  was  the  case.  Some  of^  their  most 
distinguished  characters  are  decidedly  opposed  to  its  relinquishment. 
When  its  cession  was  proposed  by  the  southern  states,  the  northern 
states  opposed  it.  They  still  oppose  it.  New  Jersey  directed  her 
delegates  to  oppose  it,  and  is  strenuously  against  it.  The  same 
sentiments  pervade  Pennsylvania:  at  least  I  am  warranted  to  say  so 
from  the  best  information  which  I  have.  Those  states,  added  to 
the.  southern  states,  would  be  a  majority  against  it. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  to  obviate  the  force  of  my  observations 
with  respect  to  concurrent  collection  of  taxes  under  different  author¬ 
ities,  said,  that  there  was  no  interference  between  the  concurrent 
collections  of  parochial,  county,  and  state  taxes,  because  they  all 
irradiated  from  the  same  centre,  but  that  this  was  not  the  case  with 
the  general  government.  To  make  use  of  the  gentleman’s  own  terms, 
the  concurrent  collections  undei;  the  authorities  of  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  and  state  governments,  all  irradiate  from  the  people  at 
large.  The  people  is  their  common  superior.  The  sense  of  the 
people  at  large,  is  to  be  the  predominating  spring  of  their  actions. 
This  is  a  sufficient  security  against  interference. 

Our  attention  was  called  to  our  commercial  interest,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  landed  interest  was  said  to  be  in  danger.  If  those 
ten  men  who  were  to  be  chosen,  be  elected  by  landed  men,  and  have 
land  themselves,  can  the  electors  have  any  thing  to  apprehend?  If 
the  commercial  interests  be  in  dauger,  why  are  we  alarmed  about 
tire  carrying  trade?  Why  is  it  said,  that  the  carrying  states  will 
preponderate,  if  commerce  be  in  danger?  W  ith  respect  to  specula¬ 
tion,  I  will  remark  that  stock-jobbing  has  prevailed  more  or  less  in 
all  countries,  and  ever  will,  in  some  degree,  notwithstanding  any 
exertions  to  prevent  it.  If  you  judge  from  what  has  happened  under 
•the  existing  system,  any  change  would  render  a  melioration  prob¬ 
able. 

Friday ,  the  13 th  of  June,  1788. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  urged  that  the  convention  should  either  proceed 
according  to  the  original  determination,  clause  by  clause,  or  rescind 
that  order,  and  go  into  the  constitution  at  large. 

Mr  HENRY  opposed  the  motion  as  to  taking  up  the  subject  clause 
by  clause.  He  thought  it  ought  to  be  considered  at  large.  Ho 
observed,  that  among  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  the  business  of  the 
Mississippi  had  taken  up  a  great  deal  of  time.  He  wished  that  be¬ 
fore  they  should  take  leave  of  that  subject,  that  the  transactions  of 
congress  relative  to  the  navigation  of  that  river,  should  be  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  convention,  in  order  that  they  might  draw  their  conclu- 


316 


DEBATES, 


[Mokboc, 


sion  from  the  best  source.  For  this  purpose,  he  hoped  that  those 
gentlemen  who  had  been  then  in  congress,  and  the  present  members 
of  congress  who  were  in  convention,  would  communicate  what  they 
knew  on  the  subject.  He  declared  that  he  did  not  wish  to  hurt  th© 
feelings  of  the  gentlemen  who  had  been  in  congress,  or  to  reflect  on. 
any  private  character:  but  that  for  the  information  of  the  convention, 
he  was  desirous  of  having  the  most  authentic  account  and  faithful 
account  of  facts. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  had  no  objection  to  Mr  Henry’s  proposal. 

Mr  MADISON  then  declared  that  if  the  honorable  gentleman 
thought  that  he  had  given  an  incorrect  account  of  the  transactions 
relative  to  the  Mississippi,  he  would,  on  a  thorough  and  complete 
investigation,  find  himself  mistaken.  That  he  had  his  information 
from  his  own  knowledge  and  from  a  perusal  of  the  documents  and 
papers  which  related  to  those  transactions:  that  it  had  always  been 
his  opinion,  that  the  poiicy  which  had  for  its  object  the  relinquish¬ 
ment  of  that  river,  was  unwise,  and  the  mode  of  conducting  it,  was 
etill  more  exceptionable.  He  added,  that  he  had  no  objection  to 
have  every  light  on  the  subject  that  could  tend  to  elucidate  it. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  hoped,  that  after  the  information  should  be  given 
respecting  that  river,  they  would  confine  themselves  to  the  order  of 
the  house. 

The  convention  then  resolved  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole 
convention,  to  take  into  farther  consideration,  the  proposed  constitu¬ 
tion,  and  more  particularly  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  information 
concerning  the  transactions  of  congress  relativs  to  the  Mississippi.— 
Mr  Wythe  in  the  chair. 

On  motion,  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  Assembly  relative  to  the 
Mississippi  were  read. 

Mr  LEE,  of  Westmoreland,  then,  in  a  short  speech,  related  sev¬ 
eral  congressional  transactions  respecting  that  river,  and  strongly  as¬ 
serted  that  it  was  the  inflexible  and  determined  resolution  of  congress 
never  to  give  it  up.  That  the  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  who  was 
authorized  to  form  a  treaty  with  Gardoqui,  the  Spanish  ambassadors 
had  positive  directions  not  to  assent  to  give  up  that  navigation,  and 
that  it  never  had  been  their  intention  or  wish  to  relinquish  it.  Thai 
on  the  contrary,  they  earnestly  wished  to  adopt  the  best  plan  of  se¬ 
curing  it. 

Alter  some  desultory  conversation,  Mr.  MONROE  spoke  as  fol¬ 
lows:  Mr.  Chairman,  my  conduct  respecting  the  transactions  of  con¬ 
gress,  upon  this  interesting  subject,  since  my  return  to  the  state,  has 
been  well  known  to  many  worthy  gentlemen  here.  I  have  often 
been  called  upon  before  this,  in  a  public  line,  and  particularly  in  tha 
last  assembly,  whilst  I  was  present,  for  information  of  these  transae- 


VIRGINIA. 


317 


Monroe.] 


lions;  but  have  heretafore  declined  it,  and  for  reasons  that  were  held 
satisfactory.  Being1  amenable  upon  the  principles  of  the  federal 
compact,  to  the  legislature  for  my  conduct  in  congress,  it  cannot  be 
doubted,  if  required,  it  were  my  duty  to  obey  their  directions;  but 
that  honorable  body  thought  it  best  to  dispense  with  such  demand. 
The  right  in  the  assembly  is  unquestionably  more  complete,  having 
powers  paramount  to  that;  but  even  here  I  could  wish  it  had  not  been 
exerted  as  I  understand  it  to  be,  by  going  into  committee  for  that 
purpose.  Before,  however,  I  enter  into  this  subject,  I  cannot  but 
observe  it  has  given  me  pain  to  hear  it  by  honorable  gentlemen  in  a 
manner  that  has  appeared  not  altogether  free  from  exception.  For 
they  have  not  gone  into  it  fully,  and  given  a  proper  view  of  the  trans¬ 
actions  in  every  part,  but  of  those  only  which  preceded  and  were 
subsequent  to  that,  which  has  been  the  particular  object  of  enquiry 
a  conduct  that  has  seemed  so  mucdi  calculated  to  make  an  impression 
favorable  to  the  wishes  in  the  present  instance..  But  in  making  this 
observation,  I  owe  it  to  those  gentlemen  to  declare,  that  it  is  in  my 
opinion  such  omission  has  proceeded  not  from  intention,  but  their 
having  forgotten  facts,  or  to  some  cause  not  obvious  to  me,  and 
which  I  make  no  doubt  they  will  readily  explain. 

The  policy  of  this  state  respecting  this  river  has  always  been  the 
same.  It  has  contemplated  but  one  object,  the  opening  it  for  the  use 
of  the  inhabitants,  whose  interest  depended  on  it — -and  in  this  she 
has,  in  my  opinion,  shewn  her  wisdom  and  magnanimity.  I  may,  I 
believe  with  propriety  say,  that  all  the  measures  that  have  at  any 
time  been  taken  by  congress  for  that  purpose,  were  adopted  at  th« 
instance  of  this  state.  There  was  a  time,  it  is  true,  sir,  when  even 
this  state,  in  some  measure  abandoned  the  object,  by  authorising  this 
cession  to  the  court  of  Spain.  But  let  us  take  all  circumstances 
into  view,  as  they  were  at  that  time,  and  I  am  persuaded  it  will  by 
no  means  shew  a  departure  from  this  liberal  and  enlightened  system 
of  policy,  although  it  may  manifest  an  accommodation  to  the  exi¬ 
gencies  which  pressed  on  us  at  the  time.  The  southern  states  were 
overrun  and  in  possession  of  the  enemy.  The  governments  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  were  prostrate,  and  opposition  there  at  an  end. 
North  Carolina  made  but  a  feeble  resistance  ;  and  Virginia  herself 
was  greatly  hariassed  by  the  enemy  in  force  at  that  time  in  the  heart 
of  the  country,  and  by  impressments  for  her  m\  n  arjcl  the  defence  of 
the  southern  states,  in  addition  to  this,  the  finances  of  the  United 


States  were  in  a  deplorable  condition,  if  not  totally  exhausted  ;  and 
France,  our  ally,  seemed  anxious  for  peace,  and  as  the  means  cf 
bringing  the  war  tf  a  more  happy  and  speedy  conclusion,  the  object 
of  this  cession  was  the  hopes  of  uniting  Spain  in  it  vvith  all  her 
forces.  If  1  recollect  aright  Mo  at  thii  moment,  the  mini- ter  of  the 


318 


DEBATES. 


[Monroe. 


United  States  at  the  court  of  Madrid,  informed  congress  of  the  diffi¬ 
culty  he  found  in  prevailing  upon  that  court  to  acknowledge  our  in-t 
dependence,  or  take  any  measure  in  our  favor,  suggested  the  jealou¬ 
sy  with  which  it  viewed  our  settlements  in'the  western  country,  and 
the  probability  of  better  success,  provided  we  would  cede  the  navi¬ 
gation  of  this  river,  as  the  consideration.  The  latter  circumstances 
were  made  known  to  the  legislature,  and  they  had  their  weight.  _  All 
the  inferior  objects  must  yield  to  the  safety  of  the  society  itself.  A 
resolution  passed  to  that  effect.  An  act  of  congress  likewise  passed, 
and  the  minister  of  the  United  States  had  full  authority  to  relinquish 
this  valuable  right  to  that  court,  upon  the  condition  above  stated. 
But  what  was  the  issue  of  this  proposition'?  Was  any  treaty  mads 
with  Spain  that  obtained  an  acknowledgement  of  our  independence, 
although  at  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  such  acknowledgement 
would  have  cost  her  nothing?  Was  a  loan  of  money  accomplished?  In 
short  does  it  appear  that  even  Spain  herself  thought  it  an  object 
any  importance?  So  soon  as  the  war  ended,  this  resolution  was  re¬ 
scinded.  The  power  to  make  such  a  treaty  was  revoked.  So  that 
this  system  cf  policy  was  departed  from  only  for  a  short  time,  for 
the  most  important  object  that  can  be  conceived,  and  resumed  again 
as  soon  as  it  possibly  could  be. 

After  the  peace,  it  became  the  business  of  congress  to  investigate 
the  relation  of  these  states  to  the  different  powers  of  the  earth,  in  a 
more  extensive  view  than  they  had  hitherto  done,  and  particularly 
in  the  commercial  line,  and  to  make  arrangements  for  entering  into 
treaties  with  them  on  such  terms  as  might  be  mutually  beneficial  for 
each  party.  As  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  that  day,  it  was  re¬ 
solved,  “  That  commercial  treaties  be  formed,  if  possible,  with  said 
powers,  those  of  Europe  in  particular,  Spain  included,  upon  similar 
principles,  and  three  commissioners,  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Franklin,  and 
Mr.  Jefferson  be  appointed  lor  that  purpose.”  So  that  an  arrange¬ 
ment  for  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  Spain  had  already  been  taken. 
Whilst  these  powers  were  in  force,  a  representative  from  Spain  ar¬ 
rived,  authorized  to  treat  with  the  United  States,  on  the  interfering 
claims  of  the  two  nations,  respecting  the  Mississippi,  and  the  boun¬ 
daries  and  other  concerns,  wherein  they  were  respectively  interest¬ 
ed.  A  similar  commission  was  given  to  the  honorable  the  secretary 
of  foreign  affairs,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  with  these  ulti¬ 
mata  :  “  That  he  enter  into  no  treaty,  compact,  or  convention  what¬ 

ever,  with  the  said  representative  of  Spain,  which  did  not  stipulate 
our  light  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  boundaries  as 
established  in  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain.”  And  thus  the  late 
negociation  commenced,  and  under  auspices,  as  I  supposed,  very  fa- 
yorable  to  the  ^vishes  of  the  United  States ;  for  Spain  had  becvj&i 


Monroe.] 


VIRGINIA. 


319 


sensible  of  the  propriety  of  cultivating  the  friendship  of  the  states. 
Knowing  our  claim  to  the  navigation  of  this  river,  she  had  sent  a 
minister  hither  principally  to  treat  on  that  point — and  the  time  would 
not  be  remote  when  under  the  increasing  population  of  that  country, 
the  inhabitants  would  be  able  to  open  it  without  our  assistance,  or 
her  consent.  These  circumstances  being  considered,  was  it  not  pre¬ 
sumable  she  intended  to  make  a  merit  of  her  concession  to  our  wish¬ 
es,  and  to  agree  to  an  accommodation  upon  that  subject,  that  would 
not  only  be  satisfactory,  but  highly  pleasing  to  the  United  States'? 
But  what  was  the  issue  of  this  negociation?  How  was  it  termina- 
ted?  Has  it  forwarded  the  particular  object  in  view,  or  otherwise 
promoted  the  interest  and  the  harmony  of  the  states,  or  any  oUthem? 
Eight  or  ten  months  elapsed  without  any  communications  of  its  pro¬ 
gress  to  congress  :  at  length  a  letter  was  received  from  the  secreta¬ 
ry  stating  that  difficulties  had  arisen  in  his  negociation  with  the 
representative  of  Spain,  which  in  his  opinion,  should  be  so  managed, 
as  that  even  their  existence  should  remain  a  secret  for  the  present, 
and  proposing  that  a  committee  be  appointed  with  full  power  to  di¬ 
rect  and  instruct  him  in  every  case  relative  to  the  proposed  treaty. 
As  the  only  ultimata  in  his  instructions  respected  the  Missisippi  and 
the  boundaries,  it  readily  occurred  that  these  occasioned  the  difficul¬ 
ties  alluded  to,  and  were  those  he  wished  to  remove.  And  for  many 

•  i  t  ,  , 

reasons  this  appeared  at  least  to  me  an  extraordinary  proposition. 
By  the  articles  of  confederation,  nine  states  are  necessary  to  enter 
into  treaties.  The  instruction  is  the  foundation  of  the  treaty  ;  for  if 
it  is  formed  agreeable  thereto,  good  faith  requires  that  it  be  ratified. 
The  practice  of  congress  hath  also  been  always,  I  believe,  in  conform¬ 
ity  to  this  idea.  The  instiuctions  under  which  our  commercial  trea¬ 
ties  have  been  made  were  carried  by  nine  states.  Those  under 
which  the  secretary  now  acted  were  passed  by  nine  states.  The 
proposition  then  would  be,  that  the  powers  which  under  the  consti¬ 
tution  nine  states  only  were  competent  to,  should  be  transferred  to  a 
committee,  and  the  object  thereby  to  disengage  himself  from  the  ul¬ 
timata  already  mentioned  in  his  existing  instructions.  In  this  light 
the  subject  was  taken  up,  and  on  these  principles  discussed.  The 
secretary,  Mr.  Jay,  being  at  length  called  before  congress  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  difficulties  mentioned  in  his  letter,  presented  to  theis  view 
the  project  of  a  treaty  of  commerce,  containing  as  he  supposed,  ad¬ 
vantageous  stipulations  in  our  favour,  in  that  line  ;  in  consideration 
for  which  we  were  to  contract  to  forbear  the  use  of  the  navigation  of 
the  river  Mississippi,  for  the  term  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  and 
earnestly  advised  our  adopting  it. 

The  subject  now  took  a  decided  form — there  was  no  further  am* 
higuity  in  it — and  w.e  were  surprised,  for  reasons  that  have  been 


320 


DEBATES.] 


[MoRfiO&t 


already  given,  that  he  had  taken  up  the  subject  of  commerce  at  all. 
We  were  greatly  surprised  it  should  form  the  principal  object,  of 
the  project,  and  that  a  partial  or  temporary  sacrifice  of  that  interest 
for  the  advancement  of  which  the  negotiation  was  set  on  foot,  should 
be  the  consideration  proposed  to  be  given  for  it.  But  the  honorable 
secretary  urged  that  it  was  necessary  to  stand  well  with  Spain;  that 
the  commercial  project  was  a  beneficial  one,  and  should  not  be  ne¬ 
glected  ;  that  a  stipulation  to  forbear  the  use  contained  an  acknowl¬ 
edgement,  on  her  part,  of  the  right  in  the  United  States  ;  that  we 
were  in  no  condition  to  tal<;e  the  river,  and  therefore  gave  nothing 
for  it,  with  other  reasons  which  perhaps  I  have  forgotten ;  for  the 
subject  ifi  detail  has  nearly  escaped  my  memory.  We  differed  with 
the  honorable  secretary,  almost  in  every  respect.  We  admitted  in¬ 
deed  the  propriety  of  standing  well  with  Spain,  but  supposed  wo 
might  accomplish  that  end  at  least  on  equal  terms.  We  considered 
the  stipulation  to  forbear  the  use  as  u  species  of  barter,  that  should 
never  be  countenanced  in  the  councils  of  the  American  states,  since 
it  might  tend  to  the  destruction  of  the  society  itself;  for  a  ferbear- 
ance  of  the  use  of  one  river,  might  lead  unto  more  extensive  conse¬ 
quences — to  the  Chesapeake,  the  Potomac,  or  any  other  of  the  riv¬ 
ers  that  emptied  into  it.  In  short,  that  the  councils  of  the  confeder¬ 
acy  should  be  conducted  with  more  magnanimity  and  candour,  they 
should  contemplate  the  benefit  of  all  parts  upon  common  principles, 
and  not  the  sacrifice  of  one  part  for  that  of  another.  There  appeared 
to  us  a  material  difference  between  stipulating  by  treaty  to  forbear 
the  use,  and  not  being  able  to  open  the  river  :  the  former  would  be 
considered  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  western  dountry  as  an  act  of 
hostility;  the  latter  might  be  justified  by  our  inability.  And  with 
respect  to  the  commercial  part  of  the  project,  we  really  thought  it 
an  ill-advised  one,  on  its  own  merits  solely. 

Thus  was  this  project,  brought  before  congress,  and  so  far  as  I 
recollect,  in  this  form,  and  upon  these  principles.  It  was  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  tedious  and  lengthy  discussion  in  that  honorable  bod}^.  Ev¬ 
ery  distinct  measure  that  was  taken  I  do  not  remember,  nor  do  I 
suppose  it  of  consequence.  I  have  shewn  the  outlines  of  the  trans¬ 
action,  which  is,  if  I  apprehend  rightly,  all  that  the  committee  wish 
to  possess.  The  communications  of  the  secretary  were  referred  to 
a  committee  of  the  whole  house.  The  delegates  of  the  seven  eas¬ 
ternmost  states,  voted  that  the  ultimatum  in  the  secretary’s  instruc¬ 
tions  be  repealed  :  which  was  reported  to  the  house,  and  entered 
on  the  journal  by  the  secretary  of  congress,  that  the  question  was 
carried.  Upon  this  entry,  a  constitutional  question  arose  to  this  ef¬ 
fect  :  “  Nine  states  being  necessary,  by  the  federal  constitution,  to 
give  an  instruction,  and  seven  having  repealed  a  part  of  an  instru-c- 


"MONROE. ] 


VIRGINIA, 


321 


tion  so  given,  for  the  formation  of  a  treaty  with  a  foreign  power,  so 
as  to  alter  its  import,  and  authorise,  under  the  remaining  part  there¬ 
of,  the  formation  of  a  treaty,  on  principles  altogether  different  from 
what  the  said  instruction  originally  contemplated — can  such  re¬ 
maining  part  be  considered  as  in  force  and  constitutionally  obligato¬ 
ry?”  We  pressed  on  congress  for  a  decision  on  this  point  often, 
but  without  effect. 

Notwithstanding  this,  I  understood  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
secretary  to  proceed  and  conclude  a  treaty,  in  conformity  to  his  pro¬ 
ject,  with  the  minister  of  Spain.  In  this  situation  I  left  congress. 
What  I  have  since  heard  belongs  not  to  me  to  discover.  Other 
gentlemen  have  more  complete  information  of  this  business,  in  the 
course  it  has  taken,  than  I  can  possibly  have  been  able  to  obtain  : 
for  having  done  my  duty  whilst  there,  I  left  it  for  others  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  me  to  perform  theirs,  and  I  have  made  but  little  further  em 
quiry  respecting  it.  The  animated  pursuit  that  was  made  of  this 
object,  required,  and  I  believed  received,  as  firm  an  opposition. 
The  southern  states  were  on  their  guard,  and  warmly  opposed  it. 
For  my  part,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  use  every  effort  in  congress 
for  the  interest  of  the  southern  states.  But  so  far  as  depended  on 
me,  with  my  official  character,  it  ceased.  With  many  of  those  gen¬ 
tlemen,  to  whom  I  always  considered  it  as  my  particular  misfortune 
to  be  opposed,  I  am  now  in  habits  of  correspondence  and  friendship, 
and  I  am  concerned  for  the  necessity  which  has  given  birth  to  this 
relation. 

Whether  the  delegates  of  those  states  spoke  the  language  of 
their  constituents  :  whether  it  may  be  considered  as  the  permanent 
interest  of  such  states  to  depress  the  growth  and  increasing  popula¬ 
tion  of  the  western  country,  are  points,  which  1  cannot  pretend  to 
determine.  I  must  observe,  however,  that  I  always  supposed  it 
would,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  prove  injurious  to  every  part  of  the 
confederacy.  These  are  well  understood,  and  need  not  be  dilated 
on  here.  If,  however,  such  should  be  the  interest  of  seven  states, 
let  gentlemen  contemplate  the  consequences  in  the  operation  of 
the  government,  as  it  applies  to  this  subject.  .1  have  always  been 
of  opinion,  Sir,  that  the  American  states  as  to  all  national  objects., 
had  in  every  respect  a  common  interest.  Few  persons  would  be 
willino-  to  bind  them  together  by  a  stronger  or  more  indissoluble 
bond,  or  give  the  national  government  more  powers  than  myself.  I 
only  wish  to  prevent  it  from  doing  harm,  either  to  states  or  individ¬ 
uals  ;  and  the  rights  and  interests  of  both,  in  a  variety  of  instances, 
in  which  they  are  now  left  unprotected,  might,  in  my  opinion,  be 
better  guarded.  If  I  have  mistaken  any  facts,  honorable  gentlemen 

VOL.  3  2 1 


DEBATES 


[Gravsox* 


3&S 

will  correct  me.  If  I  omitted  any,  as  it  has  not  been  intentional 
so  I  shall  be  happy  with  their  assistance  to  supply  the  defect. 

Mr  Monroe  added  several  other  observations,  the  purport  of 
which  was,  that  the  interest  of  the  western  country  would  not  be  as 
secure  under  the  proposed  constitution,  as  under  the  confederation  ; 
because  under  the  latter  system,  the  Mississippi  could  not  be  relin¬ 
quished  without  the  consent  of  nine  states,  whereas  by  the  former, 
]je  said,  a  majority,  or  seven  states,  could  yield  it.  His  own  opin¬ 
ion  was,  that  it  would  be  given  up  by  a  majority  of  the  senators  pre-> 
sent  in  the  senate,  with  the  president,  which  would  put  it  in  the 
power  of  less  than  seven  states  to  surrender  it:  that  the  northern 
states  were  inclined  to  yield  it:  that  it  was  their  interest  to  prevent 
an  augmentation  of  the  southern  influence  and  power :  and  that  as 
mankind  in  general,  and  states  in  particular,  were  governed  by  in¬ 
terest,  the  northern  states  would  not  fail  of  availing  themselves  of 
the  opportunity  given  them  by  the  constitution,  of  relinquishing 
that  river,  in  order  to  depress  the  western  country,  and  prevent  the 
southern  interest  from,  preponderating. 

Mr.  GRAYSON.— Mr.  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman  was 
mistaken  when  he  supposed  that  I  said  seven  states  had  absolutely 
voted  to  surrender  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  1  only  spoke 
of  the  general  disposition  of  the  states,  which  I  alledged  to  be  actu¬ 
ated  by  interest.  That  consequently  the  carrying  states  were  neces¬ 
sarily  inclined  against  the  extension  of  the  interest  and  influence  of 
the  productive  States,  and  that  therefore  they  would  not  favor  any 
measure  to  extend  the  settlements  to  the  westward. 

I  wished  not  to  enter  into  this  discussion,  for  the  reasons  mentions 
ed  by  my  honorable  friend.  Secrecy  was  required  on  this  subject, 
I  told  congress,  that  imposing  secrecy,  on  such  a  great  occasion,  was 
unwarrantable.  However,  as  it  was  not  given  up,  I  conceived  my¬ 
self  under  some  restraint.  But  since  it  has  come  before  the  com¬ 
mittee,  and  they  desire  to  develope  the  subject,  I  shall  stand  excused 
for  mentioning  what  I  know  of  it.  My  honorable  friend  gave  a  very 
jgust  account  of  it,  when  he  said  that  the  southern  states  were  on 
their  guard,  and  opposed  every  measure  tending  to  relinquish  or 
waive  that  valuable  right.  They  would  not  agree  to  negotiate,  but 
on  condition,  that  no  proposition  whatever  should  be  made  to  sur¬ 
render  that  great  right.  There  was  a  dispute  between  this  country 
and  Spain,  who  claimed  one  half  of  Georgia,  and  one  half  of  Ken¬ 
tucky,  or  if  not  that  proportion,  a  very  considerable  part,  as  well  as 
the  absolute  and  exclusive  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  The  south¬ 
ern  states  thought  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  should  not 
he  trusted  to  any  hands,  but  those  in  which  the  confederation  had 
placed  the  right  of  making  treaties.  That  system  required  the  con¬ 
sent  of  nine  st ataA  for  that  purpose.  The  secretary  for  Foreign  Af* 


Graxson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


323 


fairs  was  empowered  to  adjust  the  interfering  claims  of  Spain  and 
the  United  States,  with  the  Spanish  Minister,  but  as  my  honorable 
friend  said,  with  an  express  prohibition  of  entering  into  any  negoci- 
ation  that  would  lead  to  the  surrender  of  that  river.  Affairs  contin¬ 
ued  in  this  state  for  some  time.  At  length  a  proposition  was  made 
to  congress,  not  directly,  but  by  a  side  wind.  The  [first  proposal 
was  to  take  off  the  fetters  of  the  Secretary.  When  the  whole  came 
out,  it  was  found  to  be  a  proposal  to  cede  the  Mississippi  to  Spain 
for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  (for  it  was  in  the  disjunctive)  in  con¬ 
sideration  of  certain  commercial  stipulations.  In  support  of  this  pro¬ 
posal,  it  was  urged,  that  the  right  was  in  him  who  surrendered,  and 
that  their  acceptance  of  a  cotemporary  relinquishment,  was  an  ac* 
knowledgment  of  our  right,  which  would  revert  to  us  at  the  expira¬ 
tion  of  that  period,  that  we  could  not  take  by  war;  that  the  thing 
was  useless  to  us,  and  that  it  would  be  wise  and  politic  to  give  it  up, 
as  we  were  to  receive  a  beneficial  compensation  for  that  temporary  ces¬ 
sion.  Congress,  after  a  great  deal  of  animosity,  come  to  a  resolu¬ 
tion,  which,  in  my  opinion,  violated  the  confederation.  It  was  re¬ 
solved  by  seven  states,  that  the  prohibition  in  the  secretary’s  instruc¬ 
tions  should  be  repealed ;  whereby  the  unrepealed  part  of  his  in¬ 
structions  authorized  him  to  make  a  treaty,  yielding  that  inestimable 
navigation,  although  by  the  confederation  ,  nine  states  were  necessary 
to  concur  in  the  formation  of  a  treaty!  How  then  could  seven  states 
constitutionally  adopt  any  measure,  to  which,  by  the  constitution, 
nine  states  were  only  competent!  It  was  entered  on  the  journals, 
and  transmitted  to  the  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  for  his  direction 
in  his  negotiation  with  the  Spanish  Minister. 

If  I  recollect  rightly,  by  the  law  of  nations,  if  a  negotiator  makes 
a  treaty,  in  consequence  of  a  power  received  from  a  sovereign  au¬ 
thority,  non-complianc  e  with  his  stipulations  is  a  just  cause  of  war. 
The  opposition  suggested,  (whether  wrong  or  not  let  this  house  de¬ 
termine)  that  this  was  the  case,  that  the  proceedings  were  repugnant 
to  the  principles,  amd  express  letter  of  the  constitution,  and  that  if 
the  compact  which  the  secretary  might  form  with  the  Spanish  minis¬ 
ter  should  not  he  complied  with,  it  would  be  giving  Spain  a  just 
cause  of  quarr  el.  So  that  we  should  be  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of 
cither  violati  ng  the  constitution  by  a  compliance,  or  involving  us  in 
a  war  by  a.  non-compliance.  The  opposition  remonstrated  against 
fne.se  tran  sactions  (and  their  remonstrance  was  entered  on  the  jour¬ 
nal)  and.  took  every  step  for  securing  this  great  national  right,  In 
the  course  of  the  debates  in  congress  on  thjs  subject,  which  were 
warm  and  animated,  it  was  urged  that  congress,  by  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions,  had  no  right,  even  with  the  consent  of  nine  states,  to  dismem¬ 
ber  the  empire,  or  relinquish  any  part  of  the  territory  appertaining  to 


324 


DEBATED 


[Grayson*. 


the  aggregate  society,  to  any  foreign  power.  Territorial  dismem¬ 
berment,  or  the  relinquishment  of  any  other  privilege,  is  the  highest 
act  of  a  sovereign  power.  The  right  of  territory  has  ever  been  con¬ 
sidered  as  most  sacred,  and  ought  to  be  guarded  in  the  most  particu¬ 
lar  and  cautious  manner.  Whether  that  navigation  be  secure  on  this 
principle,  by  the  new  constitution,  I  will  not  pretend  to  determine*. 

I  will,  however,  say  one  thing.  It  is  not  well  guarded  under  the  old 
system.  A  majority  of  seven  states  are  disposed  to  yield  it.  B 
speak  not  of  any  particular  characters.  I  have  the  charity  to  suppose 
that  all  mankind  act  on  the  best  motives.  Suffice  it  for  me  to  tell 
direct  and  plain  facts,  and  leave  the  conclusion  with  this  honorable 
house. 

It  has  been  urged  by  my  honorable  friend  on  the  other  side  (Mr. 
Madison)  that  the  eastern  states  were  averse  to  surrender  it  during 
the  war,  and  that  the  southern  states  proposod  it  themselves,  and 
wished  to  yield  it.  My  honorable  friend  last  up,  has  well  accounted 
for  this  disgraceful  offer,  and  I  will  account  for  the  refusal  of  the 
eastern  states  to  surrender  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  no  new  thing  to  you  to  discover  these  reasons. 
It  is  well  known,  that  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  and  the  Missis¬ 
sippi,  are  balances  for  one  another  ;  that  the  possession  of  one  tends 
to  the  preservation  of  the  other.  This  accounts  for  the  eastern  poli¬ 
cy.  They  thought  that  if  the  Mississippi  was  given  up,  the  south¬ 
ern  states  would  give  us  the  right  of  the  fishery,  on  which  their  ve¬ 
ry  existence  depends.  It  is  not  extraordinary  therefore,  while  these 
great  rights  of  the  fishery  depends  on  such  a  variety  of  circumstan¬ 
ces,  the  issue  of  war,  the  success  of  negociations,  and  numerous 
other  causes,  that  they  should  wish  to  preserve  this  great  counter¬ 
balance.  What  has  been  their  conduct  since  the  peace?  When  re¬ 
lieved  from  the  apprehensions  of  losing  that  great  advantage,  they 
solicitous  of  securing  a  superiority  of  influence  in  the  national  coun¬ 
cils.  They  look  at  the  true  interest  of  nations.  Their  language 
has  been — “  Let  us  prevent  any  new  states  from  rising  in  the  west¬ 
ern  world,  or  they  will  out  vote  us-*-we  will  lose  our  importance, 
and  become  as  nothing  in  the  scale  of  nations.  If  we  do  not  pre¬ 
vent  it,  our  countrymen  will  remove  to  those  places,  instead  of  going 
to  sea  and  we  will  receive  no  particular  tribute  or  advantage  from 
them.” 

This,  sir, has  been  the  language  and  spirit  of  their  policy,  and  I  sup¬ 
pose  ever  will.  The  Mississippi  is  not  secured  under  the  old  con¬ 
federation  ;  but  it  is  better  secured  by  that  system  than  by  the  new  con¬ 
stitution.  By  the  existing  system,  nine  states  are  necessary  to  yield 
it.  A  few  states  can  give  it  away  by  the  paper  on  your  table.  But 
I  hope  it  will  never  be  put  in  the  power  of  a  less  number  than  nine 
states.  Jersey,  we  are  told.,  changed  her  temper  on  that  great  occa- 


VIRGINIA. 


Monroe.] 


325 


sion.  I  believe  that  that  mutability  depended  on  characters.  But 
We  have  lost  another  state — Maryland.  For,  from  fortuitous  cir¬ 
cumstances,  those  states  deviated  from  their  natural  character — Jer¬ 
sey  in  not  giving  up  the  right  of  the  Mississippi,  and  Maryland  in 
giving  it  up.  Whatever  be  their  object,  ehch  departed  from  her  nat¬ 
ural  disposition.  It  is  with  great  reluctance  I  have  said  any  thing 
on  the  subject,  and  if  I  have  misrepresented  facts,  I  wish  to  be  cor¬ 
rected. 

Mr  HENRY  then  arose,  and  requested  that  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  [Mr  Monroe]  would  discover  the  rest  of  the  project,  and  what 
Spain  was  to  do  on  her  part,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  cession  of  the 
Mississippi. 

Mr.  MONROE. — Mr  Chairman,  I  do  not  thoroughly  recollect 
every  circumstance  relative  to  this  project.  But  there  was  to  be  a 
commercial  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  Spain.  We 
ere  to  be  allowed  to  carry  our  produce  to  the  ports  of  Spain,  and  the 
Spaniards  to  have  an  equal  right  of  trading  hither.  It  was  stipula¬ 
ted,  that  there  should  be  a  reciprocity  of  commercial  intercourse  and 
benefits  between  the  subjects  of  Spain,  and  the  citizens  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States.  The  manufactures  of  Spain  were  to  be  freely  imported 
and  vended  in  this  country,  and  our  manufactures  to  be  Carried  to 
“Spain,  &c.  without  obstruction,  and  both  parties  were  to  have  mu¬ 
tual  privileges  in  point  of  commercial  intercourse  and  connection. 
This,  Sir,  is  the  amount  of  the  project  of  Spain,  which  was  looked 
upon  as  advantageous  to  us.  I  thought  myself,  that  it  was  not.  1 
considered  Spain  as  being  without  manufactures — as  the  most  slow 
in  the  progress  ot  arts,  and  the  most  unwise  with  respect  to  com¬ 
merce,  of  all  nations  under  the  sun,  (in  which  respect  I  thought 
Great  Britain  the  wisest.)  Their  gentleman  and  nobles  look  on 
commerce  with  contempt.  No  man  of  character  among  them  will 
undertake  it.  They  make  little  discrimination  with  any  nation. 
Their  character  is  to  shut  out  all  nations,  and  exclude  every  inter¬ 
course  with  them,  and  this  would  be  the  case  with  respect  to  us. 
Nothing  is  given  to  us  by  this  project,  but  what  is  given  to  all  oth¬ 
er  nations.  It  is  bad  policy  and  unjustifiable  on  such  terms  to  yield 
that  valuable  right.  Their  merchants  have  great  stocks  in  trade.  It 
is  not  so  with  our  merchants.  Our  people  require  encouragement. 
Mariners  must  be  encouraged.  On  a  review  of  these  circumstances 
I  thought  the  project  unwise  and  impolitic. 

Mr,  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  it  is  extremely  disagreeable  to 
me  to  enter  into  this  discussion,  as  it  is  foreign  to  the  object  of  our 
deliberations  here,  and  may  in  the  opinion  of  some,  lead  to  sully  the 
teputation  of  our^ublic  councils.  As  far  as  my  memory  will  ena¬ 
ble  me,  I  will  develope  the  subject.  We  will  not  differ  with  one 


326 


DEBATES, 


[Madisox. 


another  with  respect  to  facts  :  perhaps  we  may  differ  with  respect 
to  principles.  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  observe,  that  I  was  led  be¬ 
fore  to  make  some  observations,  which  had  no  relation  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  under  consideration,  as  relative  to  the  western  country,  to  obvi¬ 
ate  suggestions  of  gentlemen,  which  seemed  to  me  to  be  groundless, 
I  stated  that  there  was  a  period  when  the  southern  states  were  advo¬ 
cates  for  the  alienation  or  suspension  of  the  right  to  the  Mississippi, 
(I  will  not  say  which)  and  the  eastern  states  were  against  both.  I 
mention  this  to  shew,  that  there  was  no  disposition  in  that  pa7t,  to 
surrender  that  right  or  dispose  of  that  country.  I  do  suppose  that 
the  fishery  had  its  influence  on  those  states.  No  doubt  it  was  the 
case. 

For  that,  and  other  reasons,  they  still  continue  against  the  aliena¬ 
tion.  For  it  might  lessen  the  security  of  retaining  the  fishery. 
From  the  hest  information,  it  never  was  the  sense  of  the  people  at 
large,  or  the  prevailing  characters  of  the  eastern  states,  to  approve 
of  the  measure.  If  interest,  Sir,  should  continue  to  operate  on  them, 
I  humbly  conceive,  that  they  will  derive  more  advantage  from  hold¬ 
ing  the  Mississippi,  than  even  the  southern  states.  For  if  the  car¬ 
rying  business  be  their  natural  province,  how  can  it  be  so  much  ex¬ 
tended  and  advanced,  as  by  giving  the  encouragement  to-  agriculture 
in  the  western  country,  and  having  the  emolument  of  carrying  their 
produce  to  market?  The  carrying  trade  must  depend  on  agriculture 
for  its  support  in  a  great  measure.  In  what  place  is  agriculture  so 
capable  of  improvement  and  great  extension,  as  in  the  western 
country?  But  whatever  considerations  may  prevail  in  that  quarter 
or  any  other,  respecting  their  interest,  I  think  we  may  fairLy  sup<~ 
pose  that  the  consideration  which  the  honorable  member  mentioned, 
and  which  has  been  repeated,  I  mean  the  emigrations  which  are  go¬ 
ing  on  to  the  westward,  must  produce  the  same  effect  as  to  them, 
which  it  may  produce  with  respect  to  us.  Emigrations  are  now  go¬ 
ing  on  from  that  quarter  as  well  as  from  this  state. 

I  readily  confess  that  neither  the  old  confederation,  nor  the  new 
constitution,  involves  a  right  to  give  the  navigation  of  the  Mississip¬ 
pi.  It  is  repugnant  to.  the  law  of  nations.  I  have  always  though* 
and  said  so.  Although  the  right  be  denied,  there  may  be  emergen^ 
eies  which  will  make  it  necessary  to  make  a  sacrifice.  But  there 
is  a  material  difference  between  emergencies  of  safety  in  time  of 
war,  and  those  which  may  relate  in  mere  commercial  regulations* 
\  on  might  on  solid  grounds  deny  in  peace,  what  you  give  up  in 
war.  I  do  not  conceive,  however,  that  there  is  that  extreme  aver¬ 
sion  in  the  minds  ot  the  people  of  the  eastern  states,  to  emigrate  to 
the  westward,  which  was  insinuated  by  my  honorable  friend.  Par¬ 
ticular  citizens,  it  cannot  he  doubted*  may  be- averse  to  if.  But  it: 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


327 


is  the  sense  of  the  people  at  large,  which  will  direct  the  public 
measures.  We  find,  from  late  arrangements  made  between  Massa¬ 
chusetts  and  New  York,  that  a  very  considerable  country  to  the 
westward  of  New  York,  was  disposed  of  to  Massachusetts,  and  by 
Massachusetts,  to  some  individuals,  to  conduct  emigrants  to  that 
country.  0 

There  were  seven  states  who  thought  it  right  to  give  up  the  naviga¬ 
tion  of  the  Mississippi  for  twenty  five  years,  for  several  reasons 
which  have  been  mentioned.  As  far  as  I  can  recollect,  it  was  near¬ 
ly  as  my  honorable  friend  said.  But  they  had  no  idea  of  absolutely 
alienating  it.  I  think  one  material  consideration  whieh  governed 
them  was,  that  there  were  grounds  of  serious  negotiation  between 
Great  Britain  and  Spain,  which  might  bring  on  a  coalition  between 
those  nations,  which  might  enable  them  to  bind  us  on  different 
sides,  permanently  withhold  that  navigation  from  us,  and  injure  us 
in  other  respects  materially.  The  temporary  cession,  it  was  sup¬ 
posed,  would  fix  the  permanent  right  in  our  favor,  and  prevent  that 
dangerous  coalition.  It  is  but  justice  to  myself  to  say,  that  how¬ 
ever  plausible  the  reasons  .urged  for  its  temporary  cession  may 
have  been,  they  never  convinced  me  of  its  utility.  I  have  uniform- 
1  y  disapproved  of  it,  and  do  now. 

With  respect  to  the  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  I  am  intimately 
connected  with  him.  I  shall  say  nothing  of  his  abilities  and  at¬ 
tachment  to  his  country.  His  character  is  established  in  both  re¬ 
spects.  lie  has  given  a  train  of  reasoning  which  governed  him  in 
his  project.  If  he  was  mistaken,  his  integrity  and  probity,  more 
than  compensate  for  the  error.  I  am  led  to  think  there  is  no  set¬ 
tled  disposition  in  seven  states  to  give  up  that  object,  because  New 
Jersey,  on  a  further  consideration  of  the  subject,  actually  gave  in¬ 
structions  to  her  delegates  to  oppose  it.  And  what  was  the  ground 
of  this?  I  do  not  know  the  extent  and  particular  reasons  of  her  in¬ 
structions.  But  I  recollect,  that  a  material  consideration  was,  that 
the  cession  of  that  river,  would  diminish  the  value  of  the  western 
country,  which  was  a  common  fund  for  the  United  States,  and 
would  consequently,  tend  to  impoverish  their  public  treasury.  These 
Sir,  were  rational  grounds. 

Give  me  leave,  Sir,  as  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  the  honor¬ 
able  gentlemen  has  raised  a  question,  whether  it  be  not  more  secure  un¬ 
der  the  old  than  the  new  constitution — to  differ  from  him.  I  shall 
enter  into  the  reasoning  which,  in  my  mind,  renders  it  more  secure 
under  the  new  system.  Two  thirds  of  the  senators  present,  (which) 
will  be  nine  states,  if  all  attend  to  their  duty)  and  the  president 
must  concur  in  every  treaty  which  can  be  made.  Here  are  two  dis. 
linct  and  independent  branches,  which  must  agree  to  every  treaty  un- 


328 


DEBATES. 


f  Madison. 


der  the  existing-  system,  two  thirds  of  the  states  must  concur  to 
form  a  treaty.  But  it  is  but  one  body.  Gentlemen  may  reason 
and  conclude  differently  on  this  subject.  I  own  that  as  far  as  1 
have  any  rights,  which  are  but  trivial,  I  \Vould  rather  trust  them  to 
the  new,  than  the  old  government.  Besides,  let  me  observe,  that 
the  house  of  representatives  will  have  a  material  influence  on  the' 
government,  and  will  be  additional  security  in  this  respect:  but 
there  is  one  thing  which  he  mentioned,  which  merits  attention.  If 
commercial  policy  be  a  source  of  great  danger,  it  will  have  less  in¬ 
fluence  in  the  new  system,  than  in  the  old.  For,  in  the  house  of 
representatives,  it  will  have  little  or  no  influence.  They  are  drawn 
from  the  landed  interest;  taken  from  the  states  at  large,  and  many 
of  them  from  the  western  country.  Whereas  the  present  members 
of  congress  have  been  taken  from  the  Atlantic  side  of  the  continent. 
When  we  calculate  the  dangers  that  may  arise  in  any  case,  we  judge 
from  the  rules  of  proportion  and  chances  of  numbers.  The  people 
at  large  choose  those  who  elect  the  president.  The  weight  of  pop¬ 
ulation  will  be  to  the  southward,  if  we  include  the  western  country. 
There  will  then  be  a  majority  of  the  people  in  favor  of  this  right. 
As  the  president  must  be  influenced  by  the  sense  and  interest  of  his- 
electors,  as  far  as  it  depends  on  him  (and  his  agency  in  making 
treaties  is  equal  to  that  of  the  senate)  he  will  oppose  the  cession  of 
that  navigation.  As  far  as  the  influence  of  the  representative  goes, 
it  will  also  operate  in  favor  of  this  right. — The  power  of  treaties 
is  not  lodged  in  the  senators  of  particular  states.  Every  state  has 
an  equal  weight.  If  ten  senators  can  make  a  treaty,  ten  senators,, 
can  prevent  one  from  being  made.  It  is  from  a  supposition,  that 
all  the  southern  delegates  will  be  absent,  that  ten  senators  or  two 
thirds  of  a  majority,  can  give  up  this  river.  The  possibility  of  ab¬ 
sence  operates  equally  as  much  against  the  northern  states.  If  one 
fifth  of  the  members  present  think  the  measure  enoneous  the  votes 
of  the  states  are  to  be  taken  upon  it,  and  entered  on  the  journals. 
Every  gentlemen  here  ought  to  recollect,  that  this  is  some  security, 
as  the  people  will  thereby  know  those  who  advocate  iniquitous 
measures.  If  we  consider  the  number  of  changes  in  the  members 
tjf  the  government,  we  will  find  it  another  security!  But  after  all, 
Sir,  what  will  this  policy  signify,  which  tends  to  surrender  the  nav¬ 
igation  ol  Mississippi?  Resolutions  of  congress  to  retain  it,  may 
he  repeated,  and  re-echoed  from  every  part  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  not  resolutions  of  this  sort,  which  the  people  of  this  country  wish 
for.  They  want  an  actual  possession  of  the  right,  and  protection  in 
its  enjoyment.  Similar  resolutions  have  been  taken  under  the  exis¬ 
ting  system,  on  many  occasions.  But  they  have  been,  heretofore, 
and  will  be  hereafter,  in  my  opinion,  nugatory  and  fruitless  unless  a 


MADrSON.J 


VIRGINIA. 


change  takes  place,  which  will  give  energy  to  the  acts  of  the  go¬ 
vernment. 

I  will  take  the  liberty  to  touch  once  more  on  the  several  consider¬ 
ations  which  produced  the  question,  because  perhaps  the  commit¬ 
tee  may  not  yet  thoroughly  comprehend  it.  In  justice  to  those  gen¬ 
tlemen  who  concluded  in  favor  of  the  temporary  cession,  I  mention 
*heir  reasons,  although  I  think  the  measure  wrono*.  The  reasons 
for  so  doing  under  the  old  system,  will  be  done  away  by  the  new 
system.  We  could  not,  without  national  dishonor,  assert  our  right 
to  the  Mississippi,  and  suffer  any  other  nation  to  deprive  us  of  it. 
This  consideration,  with  others  before  mentioned,  influenced  them. 
I  admit  it  was  wrong.  But  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  acted 
on  principles  of  integrity.  Will  they  not  be  bound  by  honor  and 
conscience,  when  we  are  able  to  enjoy  and  retain  our  right,  not  to 
give  it  up,  or  suffer  it  to  be  interrupted!  A  weak  system  produced 
this  project.  A  strong  system  will  remove  the  inducement.  For 
may  we  not  suppose  it  will  be  reversed  by  a  change  of  system!  I 
was  called  up  to  say,  what  was  its  present  situation.  There  are 
some  circumstances  within  my  knowledge,  which  I  am  not  at  liber¬ 
ty  to  communicate  to  this  house,  i  will  not  go  farther  than  to  an¬ 
swer  the  objections  pf  gentlemen.  I  wish  to  conceal  no  circum¬ 
stance,  which  I  can  relate  consistently  with  mjr  duty.  As  to  mat¬ 
ters  of  fact,  I  have  advanced  nothing  which  I  presume  will  be  con¬ 
tradicted.  On  matters  of  opinion,  we  may  differ.  Were  I  at  liber¬ 
ty,  I  could  develope  some  circumstances,  which  would  convince  this 
house,  that  this  project  will  never  be  revived  in  congress,  and  that 
therefore  no  danger  is  to  be  apprehended. 

Mr.  GRAYSON. — Mr  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman  last 
tip,  concluded,  by  leaving  impressions,  that  there  were  some  cir¬ 
cumstances,  which,  were  he  at  liberty  to  communicate,  would  in¬ 
duce  this  house'  to  believe  that  the  matter  would  never  be  revived. 
W  ere  we  to  exclude  from  facts  and  opinions,  or  were  we  to  appeal 
to  the  resolutions  of  congress,  a  very  different  conclusion  would  re¬ 
sult.  When  I  was  in  congress  last,  there  was  a  resolution  to  apolo¬ 
gize  to  his  Catholic  Majesty,  for  not  making  the  treaty,  and  inti¬ 
mating  that  when  the  situation  of  things  were  altered,  it  might  be 
done.  Had  it  not  been  tor  one  particular  circumstance,  it  would 
have  been  concluded  on  the  terms  my  honorable  friend  mentioned. 
When  I  was  last  in  congress,  the  project  was  not  given  over.  Its 
friends  thought  it  would  be  renewed. 

With  respect  to  the  Mississippi  and  back  lands,  the  eastern  states 
are  willing  to  relinquish  that  great  and  essential  right.  For  they 
consider  the  consequences  of  governing  the  union,  as  of  more  im¬ 
portance  than  these  considerations  which  he  mentioned  should  in¬ 
duce  them  to  favor  it. 


330 


DEBATES. 


[Grayson. 


But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  there  is  a  great  difference  be¬ 
tween  actually  given  it  up  altogether,  and  a  temporary  cession.  If 
the  right  was  given  up  for  twenty  live  years,  wonld  this  country  be 
able  to  avail  herself  of  her  right,  and  resume  it  at  the  expiration  of 
that  period?  If  ever  the  house  of  Bourbon  should  be  at  war  with 
all  Europe,  then  would  be  the  golden  opportunity  of  regaining  it. 
Without  this,  we  never  could  wrest  it  from  the  house  of  Bourbon, 
the  branches  of  which  always  support  each  other. 

If  things  continue  as  they  are  now,  emigrations  will  continue  to 
that  country.  The  hope  that  this  great  national  right  will  be  retain¬ 
ed,  will  induce  them  to  go  thither.  But  take  away  that  hope,  by 
giving  up  the  Mississippi  for  twenty-five  years,  and  the  emigrations 
will  cease.  As  interest  actuates  mankind,  will  they  go  thither 
when  they  know  they  cannot  enjoy  the  privilege  of  navigating  that 
river,  or  find  a  ready  market  for  their  produce?  There  is  a  majority 
of  states,  which  look  forward  with  anxiety  to  the  benefits  of  the 
commercial  project  with  Spain.  In  the  course  of  the  Spanish  nego¬ 
tiation,  our  delegation  thought  of  a  project  which  would  be  accom¬ 
modated  to  their  particular  interest.  It  was  proposed,  by  way  of 
compromise,  as  being  suitable  to  the  interest  of  all  the  states,  that 
the  Spanish  crown  should  make  New  Orleans  a  general  depository, 
and  that  the  growth  of  the  American  states  should  be  sent  down  for 
the  use  of  the  Spanish  troops  ;  Spain  being  obliged  to  foreign  na¬ 
tions  for  provisions.  This  was  throwing  out  a  lure  to  the  eastern 
states  to  carry  the  produce  of  that  whole  country.  But  this  temp¬ 
tation  did  not  succeed.  It  was  thought  no  object  in  their  view,  when 
greater  objects  presented  themselves. 

It  was  alleged  that  the  emigration  from  the  eastern  states  will 
have  the  same  effect,  as  emigration  from  this  country.  I  know  eve¬ 
ry  step  will  be  taken  to  prevent  emigration  from  thence,  as  it  will 
be  transfering  their  population  to  the  southern  states.  They  will 
coincide  in  no  measure  that  will  tend  to  increase  the  weight  or  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  southern  states.  There  is,  therefore,  a  wide  line  of  dis¬ 
tinction  between  migrations  from  thence  and  from  hence. 

But  we  are  told,,  in  order  to  make-  that  paper  acceptable  to  the  Ken¬ 
tucky  people,  thatthis  high  act  of  authority  cannot,  by  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions,  be  warrantable,  and  that  this  great  right  cannot  be  given  up. 
I  think  so  also.  But  how  will  the  doctrine  apply  to  America?  Af¬ 
ter  it  is  actually  given  away,  can  it  be  reclaimed?  If  nine  states 
give  it  away,  what  will  the  Kentucky  people  do?  Will  Grotius  and 
Puffendorff  relieve  them?  If  we  reason  what  was  done — if  seven 
states  attempted  to  do  what  nine  states  ought  to  have  done,  you  may 
judge  of  the  attention  which  will  be  paid  to  the  law  of  nations. 
Should  congress  make  a  treaty  to  yield  the  Mississippi,  that  people 
will  find  no  redress  in  the  law  of  nations. 


Hen*t-] 


VIRGINIA. 


33.1 

But,  says  he,  Massachusetts  is  willing  to  protect  emigration. 
When  the  act  of  congress  passed,  respecting  the  settlement  of  the 
western  country,  and  establishing  a  state  there,  it  passed  in  a  lucky 
moment. — I  was  told  that  that  state  was  extremely  uneasy  about  it, 
and  that  in  order  to  retain  her  inhabitants,  lands,  in  the  province  of 
Maine,  were  lowered  to  the  price  of  one  dollar  per  acre.  As  to  the 
tract  of  country  conveyed  by  New  York  to  Massachusetts,  neither 
of  them  had  a  right  to  it.  Perhaps  that  great  line  of  policy/of  keep¬ 
ing  the  population  on  that  side  of  the  continent,  in  contradistinc¬ 
tion  to  the  emigration  to  the  westward  of  us,  actuated  Massachusetts 
in  that  transaction.  There  is  no  communication  between  that  coun¬ 
try  and  the  Mississippi.  The  two  great  northern  communications 
are  by  the  North  river,  and  by  the  river  St.  Lawrance,  to  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi.  But  there  is  no  communication  between  that  country  where 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  emigrate,  and  the  Mississippi ;  nor  do 
I  believe  that  there  ever  will  be  one  traveller  from  it  thither. 

I  have  a  great  regard  for  the  secretary  of  foreign  affairs.  In  my 
opinion,  all  America  is  under  great  obligations  to  him.  But  I  dif¬ 
fered  in  opinion  with  him. 

But  the  Mississippi  is  said  to  be  more  secure  under  the  new,  than 
the  old  government.  It  is  infinitely  more  secure  under  the  latter 
than  the  former.  How  is  the  fact?  Seven  states  wished  to  pass  ail 
affirmative  act  ceding  it.  They  repealed  part  of  the  instructions 
given  the  secretary,  to  enable  him  to  conclude  a  compact  for  its  ces¬ 
sion,  and  wished  to  get  nine  states  to  agree  to  it.  Nine  states,  by 
the  confederation,  must  concur  in  the  formation  of  treaties.  This 
saved  it.  Only  seven  states  were  willing  to  yield  it.  But,  by  this 
constitution,  two-thirds  of  the  senators  present,  with  the  president, 
can  make  any  treaty.  A  quorum  is  fourteen — two-thirds  of  which; 
are  ten.  We  find  then,  that  ten  members  can,  at  any  time,  surrender 
that  great  and  valuable  right.  As  seven  states  are  willing  to  yield 
it  now,  how  the  gentleman  can  reason  in  the  manner  he  dees,  I  can¬ 
not  conceive. 

Mr.  HENRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hope,  sir,  that  as  the  honorable- 
gentleman  on  my  left,  set  the  example  of  debating  the  merits,  that, 
whatever  may  result  as  consequences  of  that  example,  may  not  be 
attributed  to  me.  I  hope  that  1  shall  be  indulged  in  offering  a  few 
words  in  addition  to  what  has  been  said.  Gentlemen  may  do  what 
they  will.  Their  reflections  will  have  no  influence  on  me.  It  is, 
said  that  we  are  scuffling  for  Kentucky  votes,  and  attending  to  local, 
circumstances. — But  if  you  consider  the  interests  of  this  country;* 
you  will  find  that  the  interest  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky  are  most  in-- 
timately  and  vitally  connected.  When  I  see  the  great  rights  of  the 
community  in  real  danger,  the  ideal  dangers  which  gentleman  speak 


DBEATUS. 


[HENRt^ 


m 

of,  dissipate.  An  union  with  our  western  brethern,is  highly  desira¬ 
ble,  almost  on  any  terms  ;  an  union  with  them  alone  can  lessen  or 
annihilate  the  dangers  arising  from  that  species  of  population,  of 
which  we  have  been  reminded  in  the  catalogue  of  dangers  which 
were  dwelt  upon.  They  are  at  present  but  few  in  number,  but  may 
be  very  numerous  hereafter.  If  that  fatal  policy  shall  take  place, 
you  throw  them  into  the  arms  of  Spain.  If  congress  should,  for  a 
base  purpose,  give  away  this  dearest  right  of  the  people,  your  west¬ 
ern  brethern  will  be  ruined.  We  ought  to  secure  to  them  that  nav¬ 
igation  which  is  necessary  to  their  very  existence.  If  we  do  not 
they  will  look  upon  us  as  betrayers  of  their  interest.  Shall  We  appear 
to  care  less  for  their  interest,  than  for  that  of  distant  people.  When 
gentlemen  tell  us  that  the  change  of  system  will  render  our  western 
brethern  more  secure,  and  that  this  system  will  not  betray  them,  they 
ought  to  prove  it.  When  a  matter  which  respects  the  great  nation¬ 
al  interests  of  America  is  concerned,  we  expect  the  most  decided 
proofs.  Have  they  given  any!  Unless  you  keep  open  the  Missis¬ 
sippi,  you  never  can  increase  in  number.  Although  your  popular 
tion  should  go  on  to  an  inflnite  degree,  you  will  be  in  the  minority 
in  congress  ;  and  although  ^ou  should  have  a  right  to  be  the  major¬ 
ity,  yet  so  unhappily  is  this  system  of  politics  constituted,  that  you 
will  ever  be  a  contemptible  minority.  To  preserve  the  balance  of 
American  power,  it  is  essentially  necessary  that  the  right  of  the 
Mississippi  should  be  secured. 

But,  said  the  honorable  gentleman,  the  eastern  states  will  wish  to 
secure  their  fishery,  and  will,  therefore,  favor  this  right.  How 
does  he  draw  the  inference!  Is  it  possible  that  they  can  act  on  that 
principle!  The  principle  which  led  the  southern  states  to  admit  of 
the  cession,  was  to  avoid  the  most  dreadful  perils  of  war.  But  their 
difficulties  are  now  ended  by  peace.  Is  there  any  thing  like  this 
that  can  influence  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the  north!  Since  the 
peace,  those  states  have  discovered  a  determined  resolution  to  give 
it  away.  There  was  no  similar  danger  to  compel  them  to  yield  it. 
No,  sir,  they  wished  to  relinquish  it.  Without  any  kind  of  neces¬ 
sity,  they  actedin  conformity  to  their  natural  disposition,  with  res¬ 
pect  to  emigrations  going  on  in  that  quarter.  This,  though  improb¬ 
able,  may  be  so.  But  to  say,  that  because  some  settlements  are 
going  on  in  New  York,  Massachusetts  will  form  a  connection  with 
the  Mississippi,  is  to  my  mind  most  wonderful  indeed.  The  great 
balance  will  be  in  the  southern  parts  of  America.  There  is  the 
most  extensive  and  fertile  territory.  There  is  the  happiest  geographi¬ 
cal  position,  situated  contiguously  to  that  valuable  and  inestimable 
river.  But  the  settlement  of  that  country  will  not  be  warranted  by 
the  new  constitution,  if  it  will  not  be  forbidden  by  it. 


Henry. J 


VIRGINIA 


333 


No  constitution  under  heaven,  founded  on  principles  of  justice, 
can  warrant  the  relinquishment  of  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the 
society,  to  promote  the  interest  of  one  part  of  it.  Do  you  not  see 
the  danger  into  which  you  are  going,  to  throw  away  one  of  your 
dearest  and  most  valuable  rights'?  The  people  of  that  country  now 
receive  great  and  valuable  emoluments  from  that  right  being  protec* 
ted  by  the  existing  government.  But  they  must  now  abandon  them. 
For  is  there  any  actual  security  ?  Shew  me  any  clause  in  that  paper 
which  secures  that  great  right.  What  was  the  calculation  which 
told  you  that  they  would  be  safer  under  the  new  than  under  the  old 
government?  In  my  mind,  it  was  erroneous.  The  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  told  you  that  there  were  two  bodies  or  branches  which  must 
concur  to  make  a  treaty.  Sir,  the  president  as  distinguished  from 
the  senate,  is  nothing.  They  will  combine,  and  be  as  one.  My 
honorable  friend  said  that  ten  men,  the  senators  of  five  states,  could 
give  it  up.  The  present  system  requires  the  consent  of  nine  states. 
Consequently  their  security  will  be  much  diminished.  The  people 
of  Kentucky  though  weak  now,  will  not  let  the  president  and  sen¬ 
ate  take  away  this  right.  Look  right,  and  see  this  abominable  poli¬ 
cy — consider  seriously  its  fatal  and  pernicious  tendency!  Have  we 
-not  that  right  guaranteed  to  us  by  the- most  respectable  power  in 
Europe?  France  has  guaranteed  to  us  our  sovereignty  and  all  its 
appendages.  What  are  its  appendages?  Are  not  the  rivers  and  wa¬ 
ters  that  wash  the  shores  of  the  country  appendages,  inseparable 
from  our  right  of  sovereignty?  France  has  guaranteed  this  right  to 
us  in  the  most  full  and  extensive  manner.  What  would  have  been 
the  consequences  had  this  project  with  Spain  been  completed  and 
agreed  to?  France  would  have  told  you,  “  you  have  given  it  up 
yourselves — you  have  put  it  on  a  different  footing,  and  if  your  bad 
policy  has  done  this,  it  is  your  own  folly.  You  have  drawn  it  on 
your  own  heads,  and  as  you  have  bartered  away  this  valuable  right, 
neither  policy  nor  justice  will  call  on  me  to  guarantee  what  you  gave 
up  yourselves.”  This  language  would  satisfy  the  most  sanguine 
American. 

Is  there  an  opinion,  that  any  future  projects  will  better  secure 
you?  If  this  strong  government,  contended  for,  be  adopted,  seven 
states  will  give  it  up  forever.  For  a  temporary  cession,  is,  in  mv 
opinion  perfectly  the  same  thing.  The  thing  is  so  obviously  big 
with  danger,  that  the  blind  man  himself  might  see  it. 

As  to  the  American  Secretary,  the  goodness  of  his  private  charac¬ 
ter  is  not  doubted.  xIt  is  public  conduct  which  we  are  to  inspect. 
The  public  conduct  of  this  secretary  goes  against  the  express  au¬ 
thority  of  nine  states.  Although  he  maybe  endowed  with  the  most 
brilliant  talents,  I  have  a  right  to  consider  his  politics  as  abandoned- 


334 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 

Yet  his  private  virtues  may  merit  applause.  You  see  many  attempts 
made,  which,  when  brought  into  actual  experiment,  ate  found  to  re¬ 
sult  from  abandoned  principles.  The  states  are  geographically  sit¬ 
uated  so  and  so.  Their  circumstances  are  Well  known.  It  is  sug¬ 
gested  this  expedient  was  only  to  temporize  till  a  more  favorable  op¬ 
portunity.  Will  any  gentleman  tell  me,  that  the  business  was  taken 
up  hastily,  when  that  vote  was  taken  in  congress'?  When  you  con¬ 
sider  the  ability  of  the  gentlemen  who  voted  in  congress  on  that 
question,  you  must  be  persuaded  that  they  knew  what  they  were 
about.  American  interest  was  fully  understood.  New  Jersey  called 
her  delegates  from  congress  for  having  voted  against  this  right.. 
Delegates  may  be  called  and  instructed  under  the  present  system, 
but  not  by  the  new  constitution.  The  measure  of  the  Jersey  dele¬ 
gates  was  averse  to  the  interest  of  that  state,  and  they  were  recalled 
for  their  conduct. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  said,  that  the  house  of  representa¬ 
tives  would  give  some  curb  to  this  business  of  treaties  respecting 
the  Mississippi.  This  is  to  me  incomprehensible.  He  will  excuse 
me  if  I  tell  him,  he  is  exercising  his  imagination  and  ingenuity. 
Will  the  honorable  gentleman  say,  that  the  house  of  representatives 
will  break  through  their  balances  and  checks,  and  break  into  the  bu¬ 
siness  of  treaties'?  He  is  obliged  to  support  this  opinion  of  his,  by 
supposing,  that  the’ checks  and  balances  of  this  constitution  are  to 
be  an  impenetrable  wall  for  some  purposes  and  a  mere  cobweb  for 
some  other  purposes.  What  kind  of  constitution  then  can  this  be? 
I  leave  gentlemen  to  draw  the  inference.  I  may  have  misunderstood 
the  gentleman,  but  my  notes  tell  me,  that  he  said  the  house  of  rep¬ 
resentatives  might  interfere  and  prevent  the  Mississippi  from  being 
given  away.  They  have  no  power  to  do  this  by  the  constitution. 
There  will  be  a  majority  against  it  there  also.  Can  you  find  on  the* 
journals,  the  names  of  those  who  sacrifice  your  interest?  Will  they 
act  so  imprudently  as  to  discover  their  own  nefarious  project?  At  pres¬ 
ent  you  may  appeal  to  the  voice  of  the  people,  and  send  men  to  con¬ 
gress  postively  instructed  to  obey  your  instructions.  You  can  recall 
them  it  their  system  of  policy  be  ruinous.  But  can  you  in  this  govern¬ 
ment.  recal  your  senators?  Or  can  you  instruct  them.  You  cannot  re¬ 
call  them.  You  may  instruct  them,  and  offer  your  opinions  ;  but  if 
they  think  them  improper,  they  may  disregard  them.  If  they  give 
away  or  sacrifice  your  most  valuable  rights,  can  you  impeach  or 
punish  them'1  If  you  should  see  the  Spanish  ambassador  bribing 
one  of  your  senators  with  gold,  can  you  punish  him?  Yes— you 
can  impeach  him  before  the  senate.  A  majority  of  the  senate  may 
be  sharers  in  the  bribe.  Will  they  pronounce  him  guilty  who  is  in 
the  same  predicament  with  themselves?  Where  then  is  the  security? 


Madiso*?.]  VIRGINIA.  335 

I  ask  not  this  out  of  triumph,  but  anxiously  to  know  if  there  be  any 
real  security. 

The  gentleman  here  observed,  what  I  would  not  give  a  single  pin 
for.  The  doctrine  of  chances  it  seems,  will  operate  in  our  favor. 
This  ideal  figurative  doctrine  will  satisfy  no  rational  people.  I  have 
said  enough  to  answer  the  gentleman  as  to  retaining  the  navigation. 

Give  me  leave  to  tell  you  that  when  the  great  branch  of  the  house 
of  Bourbon  has  guaranteed  to  us  this  right,  I  wish  not\  to  lean  on 
American  strength,  which  may  be  employed  to  sacrifice  it.  This  pres¬ 
ent  despised  system  alone  has  reserved  it.  It  rests  on  strong 
grounds,  on  the  arms  of  France.  The  honorable  member  then  told 
us,  that  he  thought  the  project  would  not  be  revived.  Here  again 
the  doctrine  of  chances  is  introduced.  I  will  admit  that  the  honor¬ 
able  gentleman  can  calculate  as  to  future  events.  But  it  is  too  much 
for  him  to  say  that  it  will  not  be  taken  up  again.  The  same  dispo¬ 
sition  may  again  revive  that  nefarious  project.  I  can  inform  him  of 
this,  that  the  American  ambassador  advises,  to  let  it  rest  for  the  pres¬ 
ent,  which  insinuates  that  it  will  be  resumed  at  a  more  favorable  op¬ 
portunity.  If  this  be  the  language  or  spirit  which  causes  its  sus¬ 
pension  this  nefarious,  abominable  project  will  be  again  introduced 
the  first  favorable  opportunity.  We  cannot  fortify  the  Atlantic 
ocean.  The  utmost  we  can  do,  is  to  become  formidable  to  the  west¬ 
ward.  This  will  be  prevented,  if  this  abominable  project  be  adop¬ 
ted.  Mr.  Henry  then  added,  that,  in  treating  the  subject,  at  large 
he  followed  the  example  of  other  gentlemen,  and  that  he  trusted  he 
should  be  permitted  to  consider  it  generally  again. 

Mr.  MADISON  arose  and  observed,  that  the  particular  ground, 
on  which  the  abandonment  of  that  project  was  founded,  was,  that  it 
was  repugnant  to  the  wishes  of  a  great  part  of  America.  This  rea¬ 
son,  says  he,  becomes  stronger  and  stronger  every  day,  and  the  sense 
of  America  will  be  more  and  more  known,  and  more  and  more 
understood.  The  project,  therefore,  will,  in  all  probability,  never 
be  revived.  He  added  some  other  observations  which  could  not  be 
heard. 

Mr.  NICHOLAS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  arguments  used  to  day,  on 
this  occasion,  astonish  me  exceedingly.  The  most  valuable  right  of 
a  part  of  the  community  has  been  invaded.  By  whom.2  By  con¬ 
gress,  under  the  existing  system — the  worthy  member’s  favorite  con¬ 
federation.  Is  this  an  argument  to  continue  that  confederation! 
Does  it  not  prove  that  that  confederation  is  not  sufficient  for  the  purpo¬ 
ses  for  which  it  was  instituted!  It  was  doubted  what  proportion  had  a 
right  on  that  occasion,  to  repeal  the  prohibitory  part  of  the  secreta¬ 
ry’s  instructions.  The  confederation  which  makes  it  a  doubt,  wh'eth- 
er  they  had  a  right  to  sacrifice  this  right — whether  seven  states 


336 


DEBATES. 


{Nicholas. 


and  not  nine,  had  aright  to  make  the  temporary  cession,  is  the  sys- 
tern  which  merits  censure.  Yet  by  an  ingenious  and  subtle  devia¬ 
tion,  this  instance  is  brought  against  this  constitution.  We  have 
been  alarmed  about  the  loss  of  the  Mississippi,  in  and  out  of  doors. 
What  does  it  all  amount  to1?  It  amounts  to  an  attempt  under  the 
present  confederation  to  yield  it  up,  WThy  have  we  been  told  of  the 
great  importance  of  this  valuable  right?  Every  man  knows  it.  No 
man  has  a  greater  regard  for  it  than  I  have.  But  what  is  the  ques¬ 
tion  which  the  honorable  gentleman  ought  to  ask  himself?  Is  this 
right  better  secured  under  the  present  confederation ,  than  the  new  go * 
vernment ?  This  is  the  sole  question.  I  beg  leave  to  draw  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  committee  to  this  subject.  It  is  objected  by  my  friend 
to  my  left,  that  two-thirds  of  the  senate  present  may  advise  the  pre¬ 
sident  to  give  up  this  right  by  a  treaty,  by  which  five  states  may  re¬ 
linquish  it.  It  is  provided  in  the  first  article,  that  a  majority  of 
each  house  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  to  do  business  :  and  then  in 
the  second  article,  that  the  president,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  senate,  shall  have  power  to  make  treaties.  What 
part  of  the  senate?  It  adds,  “  Provided  two  thirds  of  the  senators 
concur.”  WThat  is  the  inference?  That  there  must  be  a  quorum, 
and  two4hirds  of  the  whole  must  agree.  I  shall  be  told  perhaps,  that 
this  construction  is  not  natural,  not  the  positive  construction  of  the 
clause.  If  the  right  construction  be,  that  two-thirds  of  a  quorum, 
or  ten  senators,  may,  with  the  president,  make  a  treaty — to  justify 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Mississippi  may  be  given  away  by  five  states, 
two  most  improbable  things  must  concur:  first,  that  on  the  important 
occasion  of  treaties,  ten  senators  will  neglect  to  attend  ;  and  in  the 
next  place  that  the  senators  whose  states,  are  most  interested  in  be¬ 
ing  fully  represented,  will  be  those  who  will  fail  to  attend.  I  mean 
those  from  the  southern  states.  How  natural  this  supposition  is,  I 
refer  to  the  candour  of  the  committee.  But  we  are  told,  that  we 
have  every  thing  to  fear  from  the  northern  states,  because  they  will 
prevent  an  accession  of  states  to  the  south.  The  policy  of  states 
will  sometimes  change.  This  is  the  case  with  those  states,  if  indeed 
they  were  enemies  to  the  right.  And  therefore,  as  I  am  informed, 
by  very  good  authority,  congress  has  admitted  Kentucky,  as  a  state, 
into  the  union.  Then  the  law  of  nations  will  secure  it  to  them,  as 
the  deprivation  of  territorial  rights  is  obviously  repugnant  to  that 
law. 

But  we  are  told,  that  we  may  not  trust  them  because  self  interest 
will  govern  them.  To  that  interest  I  will  appeal.  You  have  been 
told,  that  there  was  a  difference  between  the  states — that  they  were 
naturally  divided  into  carrying  and  non-carrying  states.  It  is  not 
seasonable  to  presume,  that  the  advancement  of  population  and  agri- 


VIRGINIA, 


Nicholas.] 


337 


culture  in  the  western  country,  will  mostly  operate  in  favor  of  those 
states,  who  from  their  situation  are  best  calculated  to  carry  the  pro¬ 
duce  of  America  to  foreign  markets.  Besides,  as  members  of  the 
union,  they  will  be  materially  affected  by  the  sale  of  the  back  lands, 
which  will  be  greatly  diminished  in  case  of  the  relinquishment  of 
that  right.  The  same  reason  which  induced  them  tq  erect  states 
there,  will  also  actuate  them  on  every  future  occasion.  But  congress 
has  violated  the  confederation.  Shall  we  continue  then  under  a  go¬ 
vernment  which  warrants,  or  cannot  prevent  violations'?  Shall  we 
hesitate  to  embrace  a  government  which  will  check  them?  But,  says 
Jne  honorable  gentleman  over  the  way  (Mr.  Grayson)  the  eastern 
states  were  interested  during  the  war  in  retaining  the  Mississippi. 
But  now  they  have  nothing  to  fear.  Will  war  not  return?  A  trreat 
part  of  his  argument  turns  upon  that  supposition.  TVe  will  always 
have  peace,  and  need  make  no  provision  against  wars.  Is  not  this  de¬ 
ceiving  ourselves?  Is  it  not  fallacious?  Did  there  ever  exist  a  na¬ 
tion  which  at  some  period  or  other  was  not  exposed  to  war.  As 
there  is  no  security  against  future  wars,  the  Newr  England  states 
w'iil  be  as  much  interested  in  the  possession  of  the  Mississippi  here¬ 
after,  as  they  were  during  the  wTar.  But,  says  he,  the  confederation 
affords  greater  security  to  the  western  country,  than  the  new  go¬ 
vernment.  Consider  it  maturely,  and  you  will  find  the  contrary  to 
be  a  fact.  The  security  arising  from  the  confedration  is  said  to  be 
this,  that  nine  states  must  concur  in  the  formation  of  a  treaty.  If 
then  hereafter  thirty  states  should  come  into  the  union,  yet  nine  states 
will  still  be  able  to  make  a  treaty.  Where  then  is  your  boasted  se¬ 
curity,  if  nine  states  can  make  a  treaty,  although  ever  so  many 
states  should  come  into  the  union?  On  the  other  hand,  how  is  this 
guarded  under  the  new  constitution?  No  certain  limited  number  of  States 
is  required  to  form  a  treaty.  As  the  number  of  states  will  be  in¬ 
creasing  into  the  union,  the  security  will  be  increased.  Every  new 
state  will  bring  an  accession  of  security,  because  two-thirds  of  the 
senators  must  concur.  Let  the  number  of  states  increase  ever  so 
much,  two-thirds  of  the  senators  must  concur.  According  to  the 
present  system,  nine  states  may  make  a  treaty.  It  will  therefore 
take  five  states  to  prevent  a  treaty  from  being  made.  If  five  states 
oppose  a  treaty,  it  cannot  be  made.  Let  us  see  how  it  is  in  the 
new  constitution.  Two-thirds  of  the  senators  must  agree.  Ken¬ 
tucky,  added  to  the  other  states,  will  make  fourteen  states.  Twenty- 
eight  senators  will  be  the  representation  of  the  states,  two-thirds  of 
which  will  be  nineteen  ,  and  if  nine  members  concur  in  opposition, 
the  senate  can  do  no  act.  Five  states  you  are  told,  have  concurred 
in  opposing  the  relinquishment  of  that  right.  Kentucky  has  come 
into  the  union.  She  will  oppose  it  naturally.  It  may  be  naturally 
vol.  3.  22 


338 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas, 


concluded  then;  that  there  will  be  at  least  twelve  members  in  the  se-^ 
nate  against  it.  So  that  there  will  be  several  persons  in  the  senate 
more  than  will  be  sufficient  prevent  the  alienation  or  suspension 
of  that  river.  From  this  true  representation  it  will  at  least  be  as  se¬ 
cure  under  the  new,  as  under  the  old  government. 

But,  says  he,  the  concurrence  of  the  president  to  the  formation  of 
treaties  will  be  no  security.  Why  so?  Will  he  not  injure  himself, 
if  he  injures  the  states,  by  concurring  in  an  injudicious  treaty? 
How  is  he  elected?  Where  will  the  majority  of  the  people  be?  He 
told  you  that  the  great  weight  of  population  will  be  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  United  States.  Their  numbers  will  weigh  in  choosing 
the  president,  as  he  is  elected  by  electors  chosen  by  the  people  in 
proportion  to  their  numbers.  If  the  southern  states  be  interested  in 
having  the  Mississippi ;  and  have  weight  in  choosing  the  president, 
will  he  not  be  a  great  check  in  favor  of  this  right?  Another  thing 
is  treated  with  great  contempt*  The  hohse  of  representatives,  it 
seems,  can  have  no  influence  in  making  treaties.  What  is  the  house 
of  representatives?  Where,  says  he,  are  your  checks  and  balances, 
your  i ope  dancers,  &e.?  How  is  this  business  done  in  his  favorite 
government?  The  King  of  Great  Britain  can  make  what  treaties  he^ 
pleases.  But,  sir,  do  not  the  house  of  commons  influence  them? 
Will  he  make  a  treaty  manifestly  repugnant  to  their  interest?-— W ill 
they  not  tell  him,  he  is  mistaken  in  that  respect  as  in  many  others? 
Will  they  not  bring  the  minister,  who  advises  a  bad  treaty,  to  punish¬ 
ment?  This  gives  them  such  influence  that  they  can  dictate  in  what 
manner  they  shall  be  made.  But  the  worthy  member  says,  that 
this  strong  government  is  such  a  one,  as  Kentucky  ought  to  dread.  Is 
this  just,  Mr.  Chairman?  Is  it  just  by  general  assertions,  without 
aiguments  or  proofs,  to  cast  aspersions  on  it? 

What  is  the  situation  of  that  country?  If  she  has  a  right,  and  is 
in  possession  of  the  river,  I  ask  thegentlemen  why  she  does  not  en¬ 
joy  the  fruits  of  her  right?  I  wish  if  she  has  the  river,  she  would 
give  the  people  passports  to  navigate  it.  What  do  they  want? 
They  want  a  government  which  will  force  from  Spain  the  navigation 
of  that  river.  I  trust,  sir,  that  let  the  situation,  government,  and 
politics  of  America,  be  what  they  may,  1  shall  live  to  see  the  time 
when  the  inhabitants  of  that  country  will  wrest  from  that  nation,  that 
right  which  she  is  so  justly  entitled  to.  If  we  have  that  government 
which  we  ought  to  have,  they  will  have  ability  to  enforce  their  right. 
But  he  treats  with  ridicule  the  situation  of  the  territory  settled  by 
Massachusetts.  They  can  have  no  connection  with  the  Mississippi. 
Sir,  they  aie  materially  affected  by  the  navigation  of  that  river. 
The  facility  of  disposing  of  their  produce,  and  intercourse  with  oth,-, 
er  people,  are  essential  interests. 


Nicholas.] 


DEBATES. 


339 


Bat,  sir,  we  have  the  guarantee  of  France  under  the  existing  sys¬ 
tem.  W  hat  avails  this  guaranty?  If  dependence  be  put  upon  it, 
why  did  they  not  put  us  in  possession,  and  enable  us  to  derive  ben¬ 
efits  from  it?  Our  possession  of  it  is  such,  that  we  dare  not  use  it. 
But  the  opinion  and  characteis  of  private  men  ought  to  have  nothing 
to  do  in  our  discussion.  I  wish  gentleman  had  always  thought  so. 
If  he  had,  these  debates  would  not  have  been  thus  lengthened.  But 
we  are  not  to  calculate  any  thing  on  New  Jersey.  Vbu  are  told  she 
gave  instructions  to  her  delegates  to  vote  against  the  cession  of  that 
right.  Will  not  the  same  principles  continue  to  operate  on  the 
minds  of  the  people  of  that  state? 

We  cannot  recall  our  senators.  We  can  give  them  instructions, 
and  if  they  manifestly  neglect  our  interest,  we  have  sufficient  se¬ 
curity  against  them.  The  dread  of  being  recalled  would  impair  their 
independence  and  firmness. 

1  think  that  Kentucky  has  nothing  to  expect  from  any  one  state 
alone  in  America.  She  can  expect  support  and  succour  alone  from 
a  strong  efficient  government,  which  can  command  the  resources  of 
the  union  when  necessary.  She  can  receive  no  support  from  the  old 
confederation.  Consider  the  present  state  of  that  country.  Declared 
independent  of  Virginia,  to  whom  is  she  to  look  up  for  succour? 
No  sister  state  can  help  her.  She  may  call  on  the  present  general 
government,  but  whatever  may  be  the  wish  of  congress,  they  can 
give  them  no  relief.  That  country  contains  all  my  wishes  and  pros¬ 
pects.  There  is  my  property,  and  there  I  intend  to  reside.  I  should 
be  averse  to  the  establishment  of  any  system  which  would  be  inju¬ 
rious  to  it.  1  Hatter  myself  that  this  government  will  secure  their 
happiness  and  liberty, 

Governor  RANDOLPH.  Since  I  have  seen  so  many  attempts 
made,  and  so  many  wrong  inducements  offered,  to  influence  the  del- 
gation  from  Kentucky,  I  must,  from  a  regard  to  justice  and  truth, 
give  my  opinion  on  the  subject.  If  1  have  no  interest  in  that  coun-. 
try,  I  hope  they  will  consider  what  I  have  to  say,  as  proceeding  from 
an  impartial  mind.-=-That  the  people  of  Kentucky  have  an  unequiv¬ 
ocal  right  to  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  by  the  law  of  nature 
and  nations,  is  clear  and  undoubted  ;  though  to  my  own  knowledge, 
a  question  has  arisen,  whether  the  former  connection  of  America 
with  Great  Britain,  has  not  taken  it  away  from  them.  There  was  a 
dispute  respecting  the  Tight  of  Great  Britain  to  that  river,  and  the. 
United  States  only  have  the  same  right  which  the  original  possessor 
had,  from  whom  it  was  transferred.  I  am  willing  to  declare  that 
the  right  is  complete;  but  where  is  the  danger  of  losing  it  by  the 
operation  of  the  new  government?  The  honorable  gentleman  tells 
us,  that  Fiance  has  guaranteed  to  us  the  possession  of  that  river, 


VIRGINIA^ 


[RaNDOLHHu 


340 

JVt  need  not  trouble  ourselves  about  it.  France,  he  supposes,  will 
do  evety  thing  for  us.  Does  this  pretended  security  enable  us  to- 
make  use  of  it?  Is  there  any  reasonable  motive  to  induce  the 
vernment  to  give  it  up?  If  it  be  not  given  up,  if  the  guarantee  of 
France  be  any  security  now,  it  will  be  so  then.  I  wish  an  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  over  the  way  had  known  certain  facts.  If  he  had* 
they  must  have  operated  on  his  mind  to  refrain  from  making  such 
observations.  [Here  his  excellency  read  the  treaty  of  peace  with 
Great  Britain,  defining  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States.] 

He  then  declared,  that  from  the  most  liberal  interpretation,  it 
would  never  give  the  inhabitants  a  right  to  pass  through  the  middle 
of  New  Orleans.  1  appeal  to  what  the  French  ambassador  said, 
in  1781,  in  congress,  that  America  had  no  right  to  the  Mississippi. 
If  the  opinion  of  the  ambassador  of  his  most  Christian  majesty,  and 
the  treaty,  have  any  influence,  why  are  we  told  such  things?  There 
is  not  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  power,  given  by  this  constitution, 
than  is  necessary  to  be  given  ;  but  whether  the  power  of  treaties  be 
improper  to  be  given  or  not  to  the  general  government,  I  only  now 
ask,  whether  there  be  any  real  danger  of  losing  this  right?  How 
many  senators  are  there?  Twenty-six, supposing  the  United  States  re¬ 
main  as  they  are.  We  are  told,  that  there  never  were  more  than  seven 
states  whiling  to  give  it  up.  So  that  theie  was  six  states  against  it* 
There  can  be  little  danger  then  of  the  loss  of  that  navigation?  Penn¬ 
sylvania  is  interested  to  maintain  the  Mississippi.  Her  interest  will 
stimulate  her  to  do  it.  She  has  settlements  near  Fort  Pitt,  on  the 
Ohio,  which  must  be  affected  greatly  by  that  cession.  If  his  own 
arguments  be  credited,  New  Jersey  is  against  it.  There  is  no  dan¬ 
ger  of  her  voting  the  alienation  of  that  right,  as  she  instructed  her 
delegates  to  oppose  it.  The  southern  states  are  naturally  opposed  to 
it.  There  will,  therefore,  be  a  majority  in  favor  of  the  Mississippi ; 
a  majority  that  does  not  depend  on  the  doctrine  of  chances.  There 
will  be  fourteen  senators  against  twelve,  admitting  the  states  to  re¬ 
main  as  they  are.  It  will,  moreover,  be  contrary  to  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions,  to  relinquish  territorial  rights.  To  make  a  treaty  to  alienate 
any  part  of  the  United  States,  will  amount  to  a  declaration  of  war 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  alienated  part,  and  a  general  absolu¬ 
tion  from  allegiance.  They  will  never  abandon  this  great  right. 
Are  not  the  states  interested  in  the  back  lands,  as  has  been  repeat¬ 
edly  observed?  Will  net  the  connexion  between  the  emigrants  and 

© 

o  y  ^  tliGiD j  serve  to  strengthen  opposition  to  it? 

The  gentleman  wishes  us  to  shew  him  a  clause  which  shall  preclude 
congress  from  giving  away  this  right.  It  is  first  incumbent  upon 
him  to  shew  where  the  right  is  given  up.  There  is  a  prohibition  nat¬ 
urally  resulting  from  the  nature  of  things,  it  being  contradictory  and 


Randolph.] 


DEBATES, 


341 


repugnent  to  reason,  and  the  law  of  nature  and  nations,  to  yield  the 
most  valuable  right  of  a  community,  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  one 
particular  part  of  it. 

But  there  is  an  expression  which  clearly  precludes  the  general 
government  from  ceding  the  navigation  of  this  river.  In  the  2d 
clause  of  the  3d  section,  of  the  4th  article,  congress  is  empowered, 
**  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respec¬ 
ting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  (United  .States.” 
But  it  goes  on  and  provides,  that,  “nothing  in  this  constitution  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or 
any  particular  state.”  Is  this  a  claim  of  the  particular  state  of  Vir¬ 
ginia?  If  it  be,  there  is  no  authority  in  the  constitution  to  prejudice 
it.  If  it  be  not,  then  we  need  not  be  told  ot  it.  This  is  a  sufficient 
limitation  and  restraint.  But  it  has  been  said,  that  there  is  no  re¬ 
striction  with  respect  to  making  treaties.  The  various  contingencies 
vehich  may  form  the  object  of  treaties,  are,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
incapable  of  definition.  The  government  ought  to  have  power  to 
provide  for  every  contingency.  The  territorial  rights  of  the  states, 
are  sufficiently  guarded  by  the  provisions  just  recited.  If  you  say, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  most  express  restriction,  they  may  sacri¬ 
fice  the  rights  of  the  states,  then  you  establish  another  doctrine,  that 
the  creature  can  destroy  the  creator,  which  is  the  most  absurd  an^l 
ridiculous  of  all  doctrines. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  warned  us  from  taking  rash  meas¬ 
ures  that  may  endanger  the  rights  of  that  country.  Sir,  if  this  nav¬ 
igation  be  given  up,  the  country  adjacent,  will  also  be  given  up  to 
Spain  ;  for  the  possession  of  the  one  must  be  inseparable  from  that 
of  the  other. — Will  not  this  be  a  sufficient  check  on  the  general  go- 
vernment?  This  you  will  admit  to  be  true,  unless  you  carry  your 
suspicion  to  such  an  unlimited  length,  as  to  imagine  that  they  will, 
among  their  iniquitous  acts  destroy  and  dismember  the  union.  As 
to  the  objection  of  my  friend  over  the  way,  (Mr.  Monroe)  that  so 
few  states  could  by  treaty  yield  that  navigation,  it  has  been  suffi¬ 
ciently  answered,  and  its  futility  fully  detected  by  the  gentleman 
who  spoke  last. 

Another  mistake,  which  my  friend  over  the  way  has  committed, 
is,  that  the  temporary  forbearance  of  the  use  of  the  Mississippi 
might  lead  to  the  absolute  cession  of  the  Chesepeake.  The  gentle¬ 
man  has  a  mind  to  make  up  his  climax  of  imaginary  objections,  or 
he  never  would  have  suffered  such  an  idea  to  obtrude  on  his  mind. 
Wrere  the  Mississippi,  as  he  says,  in  danger  of  being  ceded,  which 
I  deny,  yet  it  could  not  be  a  precedent  for  the  relinquishment  of  the 
Chesapeake.  It  never  can  be  putin  such  a  jeopardy.  All  the  Atlantic 
states  will  oppose  a  measure  of  this  soft,  lest  it  should  destroy  their 
commerce. 


I 

342  VIRGINIA.  [Randolph. 

The  consanguinity  between  the  western  people  and  the  inhabitants 
of  the  other  states,  would  alone  have  a  powerful  operation  to  pre¬ 
vent  any  measures  injurious  to  them,  trom  being  adopted. 

Let  me,  in  a  few  words,  endeavor  to  obviate  the  strong  observa¬ 
tions  made  to  the  gentlemen  from  that  country.  I  contend  that  there 
is  no  power  given  to  the  general  government,  to  surrender  that 
navigation.  There  is  a  positive  prohibition  in  the  words  I  have  al¬ 
ready  mentioned,  against  it.  I  consider  that  the  policy  of  the  states, 
and  disposition  of  the  people,  make  it  impossible,  and  I  couclude  that 
their  safety  is  at  least  as  great  under  the  new  as  under  the  old  go¬ 
vernment.  Let  me  intreat  those  gentlemen,  whose  votes  will  be 
scuffled  for,  to  consider  in  what  character  they  are  here.  For  what 
have  they  come  hither?  To  deliberate  on  a  constitution,  which  some 
have  said  will  secure  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  America,  and 
which  others  repiesent  as  not  calculated  for  that  purpose.  They 
are  to  decide  on  a  constitution  for  the  collective  society  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States.  Will  they,  as  honest  men,  not  disdain  all  applications 
made  to  them  from  local  interests?  Have  they  not  far  more  valua¬ 
ble  rights  to  secure?  The  present  general  government  has  much 
higher  powers  than  that  which  has  been  so  long  contested.  We  air 
low  them  to  make  war,  and  requisitions  without  any  limitation. 
That  paper  contains  much  higher  powers.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that 
we  have  been  actuated  from  local  interests.  I  wish  it  may  not  be 
said,  that  partial  considerations  governed  any  gentleman  here,  when 
we  are  investigating  a  system  for  the  general  utility  and  happiness 
of  America.  I  know  such  narrow  views  will  not  influence  the  gen¬ 
tlemen  from  that  country,  because  I  know  their  characters.  I  hope 
this  subject  is  sufficiently  discussed,  and  that  we  shall  proceed  reg- 
.  tilarly. 

Mr.  CORBIN.  Mr.  Chairman,  all  attempts  made  to  bias  the 
opinion  of  any  gentleman  on  this  great  occasion,  are,  in  my  opinion, 
very  reprehensible.  No  member  of  this  committee  can  be  a  more 
zealous  supporter  of  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  and  the 
other  rights  of  the  aggregate  community,  than  I  am.  But  that  right, 
sir,  is  in  no  danger.  This  has  been  proven  with  much  ability  by 
my  friend  to  the  left,  and  other  gentlemen.  We  are  told,  that  five 
states  may  make  a  treaty.  I  say,  that  five  states  can  prevent  a  trea¬ 
ty  from  being  made. 

Will  not  my  argument  be  of  equal  force  with  theirs?  How  can 
live  states  make  a  treaty?  This  presupposes  that  the  members  from 
every  othet  state  will  be  absent  when  the  important  subject  of  trea¬ 
ties  will  be  on  the  carpet.  Is  this  plausable?  Or  does  it  not 
amount  to  an  impossibility?  He  says  that  the  house  of  representa¬ 
tives,  can  have  no  influence  in,  the  formation  of  treaties.  I  say  they 


Grayson.] 


DEBATES. 


34$ 


can.  Treaties  are  generally  of  a  commercial  nature,  being  a  fegu- 
iation  of  commercial  intercourse  between  different  nations.  In  all 
commercial  treaties  it  will  be  necessary  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
representatives. 

[Here  a  storm  arose,  which  was  so  violent  as  to  compel  Mr  Cor¬ 
bin  to  desist,  and  the  committee  to  rise.] 

Saturday ,  the  14 th  of  June,  1788.  N 

A  letter  from  the  honoiable  the  president  to  the  convention  was 
read,  stating  his  inability  to  attend  his  duty  in  the  house  to-day. 

Whereupon  the  honorable  John  Tyler  was  unanimously  elected 
vice-president,  to  preside  during  the  inability  of  the  president. 

Mr.  CORBIN  thought  the  Mississippi  subject  had  been  amply 
discussed.  He  hoped  that  the  committee  would  enter  into  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  proposed  constitution  regularly — but  that  if  any  gen¬ 
tleman  would  continue  the  inquiry  relative  to  that  river,  he  would 
answer  him.  He  moved  that  they  should  debate  it  clause  by 
clause. 

Mr.  GRAYSON. — Mr.  Chairman,  Iconceive  the  investigation  of 
this  subject,  which  materially  concerns  the  welfare  of  this  country, 
ought  not  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any  gentleman.  I  look  upon 
this  as  a  contest  for  empire.  Our  country  is  equally  affected  with 
Kentucky.  The  southern  states  are  deeply  interested  in  this  sub¬ 
ject.  If  the  Mississippi  be  shut  up,  emigrations  will  be  stopped 
entirely.  There  will  be  no  new  states  formed  on  the  western  wa¬ 
ters.  This  will  be  a  government  of  seven  states.  T^his  contest  of 
the  Mississippi  involves  this  great  national  contest:  That  is, 
whether  one  part  of  the  continent  shall  govern  the  other.  The 
northern  states  have  the  majority,  and  will  endeavor  to  retain  it. 
This  is,  therefore,  a  contest  for  dominion — for  empire.  I  apprehend 
that  God  and  nature  have  intended,  from  the  extent  of  territory  and 
fertility  of  soil,  that  the  weight  of  population  should  be  on  this  side 
of  the  continent.  At  present,  for  various  reasons,  it  is  on  the  other 
-side.  This  dispute  concerns  every  part  of  Kentucky.  A  particular 
investigation  ought  to  offend  no  gentleman. 

o  O  O  ^ 

[Mr  Grayson  then  declared,  he  hoped  the  subject  would  be  further 

continued.] 

Mr  ALEXANDER  WHITE  wished  the  further  discussion  of 
that  subject  to  be  postponed  till  they  came  to  that  part  which  ena¬ 
bles  the  senate  to  make  treaties.  He  seconded  Mr  Corbin’s  motion, 
to  proceed  clause  by  clause. 

[The  3d  sect.  art.  1.  was  then  read.] 

Mr  TYLER  hoped,  that  when  amendments  should  be  brought 
forward,  they  should  be  at  liberty  to  take  a  general  view  *of  the 


344 


VIRGINIA. 


[Madisgjt# 

whole  constitution.  He  thought  that  the  power  of  trying  impeach¬ 
ments,  added  to  that  of  making  treaties,  was  something  enormous, 
and  rendered  the  senate  too  dangerous. 

Mr  MADISON  answered,  that  it  was  not  possible  to  form  any 
system  to  which  objections  might  not  be  made,-  that  the  junction  of 
these  powers  might  be  in  some  degree  objectionable,  but  that  it 
could  not  be  amended.  He  agreed  with  the  gentleman,  that  when 
amendments  were  brought  on,  a  collective  view  of  the  whole  sys¬ 
tem  might  be  taken. 

[The  4th  and  5th  sect,  were  then  read.] 

Mr  MONROE  wished  that  the  honorable  gentleman,  who  had 
been  in  the  federal  convention,  would  give  information  respecting 
the  clause  concerning  elections.  He  wished  to  know  why  congress 
had  an  ultimate  control  over  the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  elec¬ 
tions  of  representatives,  and  the  time  and  manner  of  that  of  senators 
and  also,  why  there  was  an  exception  as  to  the  place  of  electing 
senators. 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  the  reason  of  the  exception  was, 
that  if  congress  could  fix  the  place  of  choosing  the  senators,  it 
might  compel  the  state  legislatures  to  elect  them  in  a  different  place 
from  that  of  their  usual  sessions,  which  would  produce  some  incon¬ 
venience,  and  was  not  necessary  for  the  object  of  regulating  the 
elections.  But  it  was  necessary  to  give  the  general  government  a 
control  over  the  time  and  manner  of  choosing  the  senators,  to  prevent 
its  own  dissolution. 

With  respect  to  the  other  point,  it  was  thought  that  the  regula¬ 
tion  of  time  place  and  manner,  of  electing  the  representatives,  should 
be  uniform  throughout  the  continent.  Some  states  might  regulate 
the  elections  on  the  principles  of  equality,  and  others  might  regulate 
them  otherwise.  This  diversity  would  be  obviously  unjust.  Elec¬ 
tions  are  regulated  now  unequally  in  some  states,  particularly  South 
Carolina,  with  respect  to  Charleston,  which  is  represented  by  thirty 
members.  Should  the  people  of  any  state,  by  any  means  be  depriv¬ 
ed  of  the  right  of  suffrage,  it  was  judged  proper  that  it  should  be 
remedied  by  the  general  government.  It  was  found  impossible  to 
fix  the  time,  place,  and  manner,  of  the  election  of  representatives  in 
the  constitution.  It  was  found  necessary  to  leave  the  regulation  of 
these,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  state  governments,  as  being  best  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  situation  of  the  people,  subject  to  the  control  of 
the  general  government,  in  order  to  enable  it  to  produce  uniformity, 
and  prevent  its  own  dissolution.  And  considering  the  state  govern¬ 
ments  and  general  governments  as  distinct  bodies,  acting  in  differ¬ 
ent  and  independent  capacities  far  the  people,  it  was  thought  the 


Madison.] 


DEBATES. 


345 


particular  regulations  should  be  submitted  to  the  former,  and  the 
general  regulations  to  the  latter.  Were  they  exclusively  under  the 
control  of  the  state  governments,  the  general  government  might 
easily  be  dissolved.  But  if  they  be  regulated  properly  by  the  state 
legislatures,  the  congressional  control  will  very  probably  never  be 
exercised.  The  power  appears  to  me  satisfactory,  and  as  unlikely 
to  be  abused  as  any  part  of  the  constitution. 

Mr  MONROE  wished  to  hear  an  explanation  of  the  ^lause  which 
prohibits  either  house,  during  the  session  of  congress,  from  adjourn¬ 
ing  for  more  than  three  days  without  the  consent  of  the  other.  He 
asked  if  it  was  proper  or  right,  that  the  members  of  the  lower  house 
should  be  dependent  on  the  senate!  He  considered  that  it  rendered 
them  in  some  respect  dependent  on  the  senators,  as  it  prevented 
them  from  returning  home,  or  adjourning,  without  their  consent, 
and  a3  this  might  increase  their  influence  unduly,  he  thought  it  im~- 
proper. 

Mr  MADISON  wondered  that  this  clause  should  meet  with  a 
shadow  of  objection.  It  was  possible,  he  observed,  that  the  two 
branches  might  not  agree  concerning  the  time  of  adjournment,  and 
that  this  possibility  suggested  the  power  given  the  president  of  ad¬ 
journing  both  houses  to  such  time  as  he  should  think  proper,  in 
case  of  their  disagreement.  That  it  would  be  very  exceptionable  to 
allow  the  senators,  or  even  the  representatives,  to  adjourn  without 
the  consent  of  the  other  house,  at  any  season  whatsoever,  without 
any  regard  to  the  situation  of  public  exigencies.  That  it  was  pos¬ 
sible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  some  inconvenience  might  result 
from  it ;  but  that  it  was  as  well  secured  as  possible. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH  observed,  that  the  constitution  of  Massachu¬ 
setts  was  produced  as  an  example,  in  the  grand  convention,  in  fa¬ 
vor  of  this  power  given  to  the  president.  If,  said  his  excelleecy,  he 
be  honest,  he  will  do  what  is  right.  If  dishonest,  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  people  will  have  the  power  of  impeaching  him. 

[The  6th  sect,  was  then  read.] 

Mr  HENRY. — Mr  Chairman,  our  burden  should,  if  possible,  be 
rendered  more  light.  I  was  in  hopes  some  other  gentleman  would 
have  objected  to  this  part.  The  pay  of  the  members  is  by  the  con¬ 
stitution,  to  be  fixed  by  themselves,  without  limitation  or  restraint. 
They  may  therefore  indulge  themselves  in  the  fullest  extent.  They 
may  make  their  compensations  as  high  as  they  please.  I  suppose, 
if  they  be  good  men,  their  own  delicacy  will  lead  them  to  be  satis¬ 
fied  with  moderate  salaries.  But  there  is  no  security  for  this, 
should  they  be  otherwise  inclined.  I  really  believe  that  if  the  state 
legislatures  were  to  fix  their  pay,  ncjjj^^j^enience  would  result 


VIRGINIA. 


346 


{Madison* 


from  it,  and  the  public  mind  would  be  better  satisfied.  But  in  the 
same  section  there  is  a  defect  of  a  much  greater  consequence. 
There  is  no  restraint  on  corruption.  They  may  be  appointed  to  of* 
flees  without  any  material  restriction,  and  the  principle  source  of 
corruption  in  representatives,  is  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  of¬ 
fices  and  emoluments.  After  the  first  organization  of  offices  and 
the  government  is  put  in  motion,  they  may  be  appointed  to  any  ex* 
isting  offices  which  become  vacant,  and  they  may  create  a  multipli¬ 
city  of  offices,' in  order  thereafter  to  be  appointed  to  them.  What 
says  the  clause'?  “  No  senator  or  representative,  shall,  during  the 
time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  un¬ 
der  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  have  been  crea¬ 
ted,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall  have  been  increased,  during 
Such  time.”  This  is  an  idea  strangely  expressed. 

He  shall  not  accept  of  any  office  created  during  the  time  he  is 
elected  for,  or  to  any  office  whereof  the  emoluments  have  been  in¬ 
creased  in  that  time.  Does  not  this  plainly  say,  that  if  an  office  be 
not  created  during  the  time  for  which  he  is  elected,  or  if  its  emolu¬ 
ments  be  not  increased  during  such  time,  that  he  may  accept  of  it1? 
I  can  see  it  in  no  other  light.  If  we  wish  to  preclude  the  entice¬ 
ment  to  getting  offices,  there  is  a  clear  way  of  expressing  it.  If  it 
be  better  that  congress  should  go  out  of  their  representative  offices, 
by  accepting  other  offices,  then  it  ought  to  be  so.  If  not  we  require 
an  amendment  in  the  clause,  that  it  shall  not  be  so.  I  may  be  wrong. 
Perhaps  the  honorable  member  may  be  able  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  on  this  subject. 

Mr  MADISON.— Mr  Chairman,  I  most  sincerely  wish  to  give  a 
proper  explanation  on  this  subject,  in  such  a  manner  as  may  be  to 
the  satisfaction  of  every  one.  I  shall  suggest  such  considerations 
as  led  the  convention  to  approve  of  this  clause.  With  respect  to 
the  right  of  ascertaining  their  own  pay,  I  will  acknowledge,  that 
their  compensations,  if  practicable,  should  be  fixed  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion  itself,  so  as  not  to  be  dependent  on  congress  itself,  or  on  the 
state  legislatures.  The  various  vicissitudes,  or  rather  the  gradual 
diminution  of  the  value  of  all  coins  and  circulating  medium,  is  one 
reason  against  ascertaining  them  immutably,  as  what  may  be  now 
•an  adequate  compensation,  might  by  the  progressive  reduction  of  the 
value  of  our  circulating  medium,  be  extremely  inadequate  at  a  pe¬ 
riod  not  far  distant. 

It  was  thought  improper  to  leave  it  to  the  state  legislatures,  be¬ 
cause  it  is  improper  that  one  government  should  be  dependent  on 
another:  and  the  great  inconveniences  experienced  under  the  old  con¬ 
federation,  shew  thesyl^nKmld  be  operated  upon  by  local  conside¬ 
rations,  as  from  general  and  national  interests. 


debates. 


Tyler.] 


Experience  shews  us,  that  they  have  been  governed  by  such  here¬ 
tofore,  and  reason  instructs  us,  that  they  would  be  influenced  by 
them  again.  This  theoretic  inconvenience  of  leaving  to  congress 
the  fixing  their  compensations  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  this 
in  the  confederation;  that  the  state  legislatures  had  a  right  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  pay  of  the  members  of  congress,  which  enabled  the  states 
to  destroy  the  general  government.  There  is  no  instance  where  this 
power  has  been  abused.  In  America,  legislative  bodies  have  reduced 
their  own  wages  lower  rather  than  augmented  them.  This  is  a 
power  which  cannot  be  abused  without  rousing  universal  attention 
and  indignation.  What  would  be  the  consequence  of  the  Virginian 
legislature  raising  their  pay  to  four  or  five  pounds  each  per  day!  The 
universal  indignation  of  the  people.  Should  the  general  congress 
annex  wages  disproportionate  to  their  service,  or  repugnant  to  the 
sense  of  the  community,  they  would  be  universally  execrated.  The 
certainty  of  incurring  the  general  detestation  of  the  people  will  pre¬ 
vent  abuse.  It  was  conceived  that  the  great  danger  was  in  creatinn- 
new  offices,  which  would  increase  the  burdens  of  the  people  :  and 
not  in  an  uniform  admission  of  all  meritorious  characters  to  serve 
their  country  in  the  old  offices.  There  is  no  instance  of  any  state 
constitution  which  goes  as  far  as  this.  It  was  thought  to  be  a  mean 
between  two  extremes.  It  guards  against  abuse  by  taking  away  the 
inducement  to  create  new  offices,  or  increase  the  emolument  of  old 
offices.  And  it  gives  them  an  opportunity  of  enjoying,  in  common 
with  other  citizens,  any  of  the  existing  offices  which  they  may  be 
capable  of  executing.  To  have  precluded  them  from  this,  would 
have  been  to  exclude  them  from  a  common  privilege  to  which  every 
citizen  is  entitled  and  to  prevent  those  who  had  served  their  country 
with  the  greatest  fidelity  and  ability  from  being  on  a  par  with  their 
fellow-citizens.  1  think  it  as  well  guarded  as  reason  requires:  More 
so  than  the  constitution  of  any  other  nation. 

Mr.  NICHOLAS  thought  it  sufficiently  guarded,  as  it  prevented 
the  members  of  the  general  government  from  holding  offices  which 
they  created  themselves,  or  of  which  they  increased  the  emolu¬ 
ments  ;  and  as  they  could  not  enjoy  any  office  during  their  continu¬ 
ance  in  congress,  to  admit  them  to  old  offices  when  they  left  con¬ 
gress,  was  giving  them  no  exclusive  privilege,  but  such  as  every 
citizen  had  an  equal  right  to. 

Mr.  TYLER  was  afraid,  that  as  their  compensations  were  not 
fixed  in  the  constitution,  congress  might  fix  them  so  low,  that  none 
but  rich  men  could  go ;  by  which  the  government  might  terminate 
in  an  aristocracy.  The  states  m||j||  choose  men  noted  for  their 
wealth  and  influence,  and  that  stateTHBuence  would  govern  the  sen- 


348 


VIRGINIA. 


[Tkler. 

ate.  This,  though  not  the  most  capital  objection,  he  thought  was 
considerable,  when  joined  to  others  of  greater  magnitude.  He  thought, 
the  gentleman’s  account  of  it,  was  by  no  means  satisfactory.  A 
parallel  had  been  drawn  between  this  power  in  congress,  of  fixing 
their  compensations,  and  that  of  our  assembly  fixing  the  quantum  of 
their  salaries.  He  was  of  opinion,  the  comparison,  did  not. apply, 
as  there  was  less  responsibility  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter  case. 
He  dreaded  that  great  corruption  would  take  place,  and  wished  to 
have  it  amended  so  as  to  prevent  it. 

Mr.  GRAYSON. — Mr.  Chairman,  it  strikes  me  that  they  may 
fix  their  wages  very  low.  From  what  has  happened  in  Great  Brit¬ 
ain,  I  am  warranted  to  draw  this  conclusion.  I  think  every  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  house  of  commons  formerly  had  a  right  to  receive  twenty 
shillings,  or  a  guinea,  a  day.  But  I  believe  that  this  salary  is  taken 
away  since  the  days  of  corruption.  The  members  of  the  house  of 
commons,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  get  nothing  for  their  services  as 
such.  But  there  are  some  noble  emoluments  to  be  derived  from  the 
minister,  and  some  other  advantages  to  be  obtained  Those  who 
go  to  parliament  form  an  idea  of  emoluments.  They  expect  some- 
tiling  besides  wages.  They  go  in  with  the  wishes  and  expectations 
of  getting  offices.  This,  Sir,  may  be  the  case  in  this  govern¬ 
ment.  My  fears  are  increased  from  the  inconveniences  experienced 
under  the  confederation. 

Most  of  the  great  officers  have  been  taken  out  of  congress,  such 
as  ambassadors  to  foreign  courts,  &c.  A  number  of  offices  have 
been  unnecessarily  created,  and  ambassadors  h^ve  been  unnecessa¬ 
rily  sent  to  foreign  countries — to  countries  with  which  we  have 
nothing  to  do.  If  the  present  congress  exceeded  the  limits  of  pro¬ 
priety,  though  extremely  limited  with  respect  to  power  in  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  offices,  what  may  not  the  future  congress  do  when  they  have 
by  this  system  a  full  scope  of  creating  what  offices,  and  annexing 
what  salaries  they  please? — There  are  but  few  members  in  the  sen¬ 
ate  and  lower  house.  They  may  all  get  offices  at  different  times,  as 
they  are  not  excluded  from  being  appointed  to  existing  offices  for 
the  time  for  which  they  shall  have  been  elected.  Considering  the 
corruption  of  human  nature,  and  the  general  tendency  of  mankind 
to  promote  their  own  interest,  I  think  there  is  great  danger.  I  am 
confirmed  in  my  opinion  from  what  I  have  seen  already  in  congress 
and  among  other  nations.  I  wish  this  part,  therefore,  to  be  amend¬ 
ed,  by  prohibiting  any  senator  or  representative,  from  being  appoint¬ 
ed  to  any  office  during  the  time  for  which  he  was  elected,  and  by 
fixing  their  emoluments.  Though  I  would  not  object  to  the  consti¬ 
tution  on  this  account  soleljflilliere  there  no  other  defect. 


Midisoh]  DEBATES.  349 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  let  me  ask  those  who  oppose  this 
part  of  the  system,  whether  any  alteration  would  not  make  it  equal¬ 
ly,  or  more  liable  to  objections?  Would  it  be  better  to  fix  their 
compensations?  Would  not  this  produce  inconveniences?  What 
authorises  us  to  conclude,  that  the  value  of  coins  will  continue  al¬ 
ways  the  same?  Would  it  be  prudent  to  make  them  dependent  on 
the  state  governments  for  their  salaries — on  those  who  watch  them 
with  jealous  eyes,  and  who  consider  them  as  encroaching,  not  on 
the  people,  but  on  themselves?  But  the  worthy  member  supposes, 
that  congress  will  fix  their  wages  so  low,  that  only  the  rich  can  fill 
the  offices  of  senators  and  representatives.  Who  are  to  appoint 
them?  The  rich?  No,  sir,  the  people  are  to  choose  them.  If  the 
members  of  the  general  government  were  to  reduce  their  compensa¬ 
tions  to  a  trifle,  before  the  evil  suggested  could  happen,  the  people 
could  elect  other  members  in  their  stead,  who  would  alter  that 
regulation.  The  people  do  not  choose  them  for  their  wealth.  If 
the  state  legislatures  choose  such  men  as  senators,  it  does  not  influ¬ 
ence  the  people  at  large  in  their  election  of  representatives. — They 
can  choose  those  who  have  the  most  merit  and  least  wealth.  If 
congress  reduce  their  wages  to  a  trifle,  what  shall  prevent  the  states 
from  giving  a  man  of  merit,  so  mucin- as  will  be  an  adequate  com¬ 
pensation?  I  think  the  evil  very  remote,  and  if  it  were  now  to 
happen,  the  remedy  is  in  our  own  hands,  and  may,  by  ourselves,  be 
applied. 

Another  gentleman  seems  to  apprehend  infinite  mischief  from  a 
possibility  that  any  member  of  congress  may  be  appointed  to  an  of¬ 
fice,  although  he  ceases  to  be  a  member  the  moment  he  accepts  it. 
What  will  be  the  consequence  of  precluding  them  from  being  so 
appointed?  If  you  have  in  your  country,  one  man  whom  you  could 
in  time  of  danger  trust  above  all  others,  with  an  office  of  high  im¬ 
portance,  he  cannot  undertake  it  till  two  years  expire  if  he  be  a  rep¬ 
resentative  ;  or  till  the  six  years  elapse,  if  a  senator.  Suppose 
America  was  engaged  in  war,  and  the  man  of  the  greatest  military 
talents  and  approved  fidelity,  was  a  member  of  either  house — would 
it  be  right  that  this  man,  who  could  lead  us  to  conquer,  and  who 
could  save  his  country  from  destruction,  could  not  be  made  general 
till  the  term  of  his  election  expired?  Before  that  time,  we  might  be 
conquered  by  our  enemies.  This  will  apply  to  civil  as  well  as 
military  officers.  It  is  impolitic  to  exclude  from  the  service  of  his 
country,  in  any  office,  the  man  who  may  be  most  capable  of  dis¬ 
charging  its  duties,  when  they  are  most  wanting. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  said,  that  those  who  go  to  congress, 
will  look  forward  to  offices  as  a  compensation  for  their  services, 
rather  than  salaries.  Does  he  recollect  that  they  shall  not  fill  offices 


350 


VIRGINIA. 


[Madison, 

created  by  themselves!  When  they  go  to  congress,  the  old  offices 
will  be  filled, — They  cannot  make  any  probable  calculation  that  the 
men  in  office  will  die,  or  forfeit,  their  offices.  As  they  cannot  get 
any  new  offices,  one  of  those  contingencies  must  happen,  before  they 
can  get  any  office  at  all.  The  chance  of  getting  an  office  is,  there¬ 
fore,  so  remote,  and  so  very  distant,  that  it  cannot  be  considered  as 
a  sufficient  reason  to  operate  on  their  minds,  to  deviate  from,  their 
duty. 

Let  any  man  calculate  in  his  own  mind,  the  improbability  of  a 
member  of  the  general  government  getting  into  an  office,  when  he 
cannot  fill  any  office  newly  created,  and  when  he  finds  all  the  old 
offices  filled  at  the  time  he  enters  into  congrees.  Let  him  view  the 
danger  and  impolicy  of  precluding  a  member  of  congress  from  hold¬ 
ing  existing  offices,  and  the  danger  of  making  one  government  de^ 
pendent  on  another,  and  he  will  find  that  both  clauses  deserve  ap¬ 
plause. 

The  observations  made  by  several  honorable  members,  illustrate 
my  opinion,  that  it  is  impossible  to  devise  any  system  agreeable  to 
all — When  objections  so  contradictory  are  brought  against  it,  how 
shall  we  decide!  Some  gentlemen  object  to  it,  because  they  may 
make  their  wages  too  high— -others  object  to  it,  because  they  may 
them  make  too  low.  If  it  is  to  be  perpetually  attacked  by  principles  so 
repugnant,  we  may  cease  to  discuss.  For  what  is  the  object  of  our 
discussion!  Truth,  sir..  To  draw  a  true  and  just  conclusion.  Can 
this  be  done  without  rational  premises,  and  syllogistic  reasoning? 

As  to  the  British  parliament,  it  is  nearly  as  he  says.  But  how- 
does  it  apply  to  this  case!  Suppose  their  compensations  bad  beer: 
appointed  by  the  state  governments,  or  fixed  in  the  constitution — 
would  it  be  a  safe  government  for  the  union,  if  its  members  depen-: 
ded  on  receiving  their  salaries  from  other  political  bodies  at  a  dis¬ 
tance,  and  fully  competent  to  withhold  them!  Its  existence  would, 
at  best,  be  but  precarious.  If  they  were  fixed  in,  the  constitution,., 
they  might  become  extremely  inadequate,  and  produce  the  very  evil 
which  gentlemen  seem  to  fear. — For  then  a  man  of  the  highest  mer-- 
it  could  not  act  unless  he  were  wealthy.  This  is  the  most  delicate 
part  in  the  organization  of  a  republican  government..  It  is  the  most 
difficult  to  establish  on  unexceptionable  grounds.  It  appears  to  me 
most  eligible  as  it  is.  The  constitution  has  taken  a  medium  between 
the  two  extremes,  and  perhaps  with  more  wisdom  than  either  the 
British  or  the  state  governments,  with  respect  to  their  eligibility  to, 
offices.  They  can  fill  no  new  offices  created  by  themselves,  nor  old 
ones  of  which  they  encreased  the  salaries.  If  they  were  excluded 
altogether,  it  is  possible  that  other  disadvantages  might  accrue  from- 
It,  besides  the  impolicy  and  injustice  of  depriving  them  of  a  com* 


DEBATES. 


Grayson,] 


351 


mon  privilege.  They  will  not  relinquish  their  legislative,  in  order 
to  accept  other  offices.  They  will  more  probably,  confer  them  on 
their  friends  and  connexions.  If  this  be  an  inconvenience,  it  is  in¬ 
cident  to  all  governments.  After  having  heard  a  vaiiety  of  piinci- 
pies  developed,  I  thought  that  on  which  it  is  established,  the  least 
exceptionable,  and  it  appears  to  me  sufficiently  well  guarded. 

Mr..  GRAYSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  acknowledge  that  the  honor¬ 
able  gentleman  has  represented  the  clause  rightly  as\o  their  ex¬ 
clusion  from  new  offices :  but  is  there  any  clause  to  hinder  them 
from  giving  offices  to  uncles,,  nephews,  brotheis,  and  other  relations 
and  friends?  I  imagine  most  of  the  offices  will  be  created  the  first 
year,  and  then  gentlemen  will  be  tempted  to  carry  on  this  accommo¬ 
dation.  , 

A  worthy  membe!  has  said,  what  had  been  often  said  before,  that, 
suppose  a  war  took  place,  and  the  most  experienced  and  able  man 
was  unfortunately  in  either  house,  he  could  not  be  made  general,  if 
the  proposed  amendment  was  adopted.  Had  he  read  the  clause,  he 
would  have  discovered  that  it  did  not  extend  to  piilitary  offices,  and 
that  the  restriction  extends  to  civil  offices  only.  No  case  can  exist 
with  respect  to  civil  offices,  that  would  occasion  a  loss  to  the  public,, 
if  the  members  of  both  houses  were  precluded  from  holding  any  of¬ 
fice  during  the  time  for  which  they  were  elected.  The  old  confede¬ 
ration  is  so  defective  in  point  of  power,  that  no  danger  can  result, 
from  creating  offices  under  it ;  because  those  who  hold  them  cannot 
he  paid.  The  power  of  making  paper  money  will  not  be  exercised. 
This  country  is  so  thoroughly  sensible  of  the  impropriety  of  it,  that 
no  attempt  will  be  made  to  make  any  more.  &o  that  no  danger  can 
arise,  as  they  have  not  power  to  pay,  if  they  appoint  officers.  Why 
not  make  this  system  as  secure  as  that,  in  this  respect?  A  great 
number  of  offices  will  be  created  to  satisfy  the  wants  of  those  who 
shall  be  elected.  The  worthy  member  says,  the  electors  can  alter 
them.  But  have  the  people  the  power  of  making  honest  men  be 
elected?  If  he  be-  an  honest  man,  and  his  wages  so  low  that  lie 
could  not  pay  for  his  expenses,  he  could  not  serve  them  if  elected. 
But  there  are  many  thirsting  after  offices,  more  than  public  good.. 
Political  adventurers  go  up  to  congress  solely  to  advance  their  own 
particular  emoluments.  It  is  so  in  the  British  house  of  commons. 
There  are  two  sets  always  in  that  house.  One,  the  landed  interest, 
the  most  patriotic  and  respectable.,  The  other,  a  set  of  dependents 
and  fortune  hunters,  who  are  elected  for  their  own  particular  interest, 
and  are  willing  to  sell  the  interest  of  their  constituents  to  the  crown. 
The  same  division  may  happen  among  our  representatives.  This 
clause  might  as  well  not  be  guarded  at  all,  as  in  this  flimsy  manner. 
They  cannot  be  elected  to  offices  for  the  terms  for  which  they  were 


VIRGINIA. 


35S 


[Madison, 


©iected,  and  continue  to  be  members  of  congress.  But  as  they  ear* 
create  as  many  offices  as  they  please,  for  the  paiticular  accommoda¬ 
tion  of  their  friends,  it  might  as  well  not  be  guarded  at  all.  Upon 
the  whole,  I  consider  it  entirely  imperfect. 

[The  7th  section  read.] 

Mr.  GRAYSON  objected  to  the  power  of  the  senate  to  propose  or 
concur  with  amendments  to  money  bills.  He  looked  upon  the  pow¬ 
er  of  proposing  amendments,  to  be  equal  in  principle  to  that  of  orig¬ 
inating,  and  that  they  were,  in  fact,  the  same.  As  this  was,  in  his 
opinion  a  departure  from  that  great  principle  which  required  that  the 
immediate  representatives  of  the  people  only  should  interfere  with 
money  bills,  he  wished  to  know  the  reasons  on  which  it  was  foun¬ 
ded.  The  lords  in  England  had  never  been  allowed  to  intermeddle 
with  money  bills.  He  knew  not  why  the  senate  should.  In  the 
lower  house,  said  he,  the  people  are  represented  according  to  their 
numbers.  In  the  upper  house,  the  states  are  represented  in  their  po¬ 
litical  capacities.  Delaware  or  Rhode  Island  has  as  many  represen¬ 
tatives  here  as  Massabhusetts*  Why  should  the  senate  have  a  right 
to  intermeddle  with  money,  when  the  representation  is  neither  equal 
or  just. 

Mr.  MADISON.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  criticism  made  by  the  hon¬ 
orable  member,  is,  that  there  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  words,  and  that 
it  is  not  clearly  ascertained  where  the  origination  of  money  bills 
may  take  place  I  suppose  the  first  part  of  the  clause  is  sufficiently 
expressed  to  exclude  all  doubts.  The  gentlemen  who  composed  the 
convention  divided  in  opinion,  concerning  the  utility  of  confining 
this  to  any  particular  branch.  Whatever  it  be  in  Great  Britain, 
there  is  a  sufficient  difference  between  us  and  them  to  render  it  in¬ 
applicable  to  this  country.  It  has  always  appeared  to  me,  to  be  a 
matter  of  no  great  consequence,  whether  the  senate  had  a  right  of 
originating,  or  proposing  amendments  to  money  bills  or  not.  To 
withhold  it  from  them  would  create  disagreeable  disputes.  Some 
American  constitutions  make  no  difference.  Virginia  and  South  Car¬ 
olina,  are,  I  think,  the  only  states,  where  this  power  is  restrained. 
In  Massachusetts,  and  other  states,  the  power  of  proposing  amend¬ 
ments  is  vested,  unquestionably,  in  their  senates.  No  inconve¬ 
nience  has  resulted  from  it.  On  the  contrary,  with  respect  to 
South  Carolina,  this  clause  is  continually  a  source  of  disputes. 
Vv  hen  a  bill  comes  from  the  other  house,  the  senate  entirely  rejects 
it,  and  this  causes  contentions.  When  you  send  a  bill  to  the  senate, 
without  the  power  of  making  any  alteration,  you  force  then  to  reject 
the  bill  altogether,  when  it  would  be  necessary  and  advantageous 
that  it  should  pass. 

The  power  of  proposing  alterations,  removes  this  inconvenience 


Madison,] 


DEBATES. 


353 


<ind  does  not  appear  to  me  at  all  objectionable,  I  should  have  no 
objection  to  their  having  a  right  of  originating  such  bills.  People 
would  see  what  was  done,  and  it  would  add  the  intelligence  of  one 
house  to  that  of  the  other.  It  would  be  still  in  the  power  of  the 
other  house  to  obstruct  any  injudicious  measure  proposed  by  them. 
There  is  no  land  mark  or  constitutional  provision  in  Great  Britain, 
which  prohibits  the  house  of  lords  from  intermeddling  with  money 
bills  ;  but  the  house  of  commons  have  established  this  rule.  Yet 
the  lords  insist  on  their  having  a  right  to  originate  them,  as  they 
possess  great  property,  as  well  as  the  commons,  and  are  taxed  like 
them.  The  house  of  commons  object  to  their  claim,  least  they 
should  too  lavishly  make  grants  to  the  crown,  and  increase  the  tax¬ 
es.  The  honorable  member  says,  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
the  right  of  originating  bills,  arid  proposing  amendments.  There  is 
some  difference,  though  not  considerable.  If  any  grievances  should 
happen  in  consequence  of  unwise  regulations  in  revenue  matters,  the 
odium  would  be  divided,  which  will  now  be  thrown  on  the  house  of 
representatives.  But  you  may  safely  lodge  this  power  of  amending 
with  the  senate.  When  a  bill  is  sent  with  proposed  amendments  to 
the  house  of  representatives,  if  they  find  the  alterations  defective, 
they  are  not  conclusive.  The  house  of  representatives  are  the  judg¬ 
es  of  their  propriety,  and  the  recommendation  of  the  senate  is  noth-; 
ing.  The  experience  of  this  state  justifies  this  clause.  The  house 
of  delegates  has  employed  weeks  in  forming  a  money  bill ;  and  be¬ 
cause  the  senate  had  no  power  of  proposing  amendments,  the  bill 
was  lost  altogether  ;  and  a  new  bill  obliged  to  be  again  introduced, 
when  the  insertion  of  one  line  by  the  senate  would  have  done. 
Those  gentlemen  who  oppose  this  clause  will  not  object  to  it,  when 
they  recollect  that  the  senators  are  appointed  by  the  states,  as  the  pres¬ 
ent  members  of  congress  are  appointed.  For,  as  they  will  guard 
the  political  interests  of  the  states  in  other  respects,  they  will  attend 
to  them  very  probably  in  their  amendments  to  money  hills.  1  think 
this  power,  for  these  considerations,  is  useful  and  necessary. 

Mr.  GRAYSON  still  considered  the  power  of  proposing  amend¬ 
ments  to  be  the  same  in  effect,  as  that  of  orignating.  The  senate  could 
strike  out  every  word  of  the  bill,  except  the  word  whereas,  or  any 
other  introductory  word,  and  might  substitute  new  words  of  their 
own.  As  the  slate  of  Delaware  was  not  so  large  as  the  county  of 
Augusta,  and  Rhode  Island  was  still  less,  and  yet  had  an  equal  suf¬ 
frage  in  the  senate,  he  could  not  see  the  propriety  of  giving  them 
this  power;  hut  referred  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  house. 

[The  8th  section  read] 

Mr.  CLAY  wished  to  be  informed,  why  the  congress  were  to  have 
power  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia,  to  put  the  laws  of  the 
union  into  execution.  23  Yol.  3. 


354 


DEBATES. 


[Mason. 


Mr.  MADISON  supposed  the  reasons  of  this  power  to  he  so  obvi¬ 
ous  that  they  would  occur  to  most  gentlemen.  If  resistance  should 
be  made  to  the  execution  of  the  laws,  he  said,  it  ought  to  be  over¬ 
come.  This  could  be  done  only  two  ways  :  either  by  regular  forces 
or  by  the  people.  By  one  or  the  other  it  must  unquestionably  be 
done.  If  insurrections  should  arise,  or  invasions  should  take  place, 
the  people  ought  unquestionably  to  be  employed  to  suppress  and  re¬ 
pel  them,  rather  than  a  standing  army.  The  best  way  to  do  these 
things,  was  to  put  the  militia  on  a  good  and  sure  footing,  and  enable 
the  government  to  make  use  of  their  services  when  necessary. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON.  Mr.  Chairman,  unless  there  be  some 
restrictions  on  the  power  of  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the 
laws  of  the  union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions,  we 
may  very  easily  see  that  it  will  produce  dreadful  oppressions.  It  is 
extremely  unsafe,  without  some  alterations.  It  would  be  to  use  the 
militia  to  a  very  bad  purpose,  if  any  disturbance  happened  in  New 
Hampshire,  to  call  them  from  Georgia.  This  would  harrass  the 
people  so  much  that  they  would  agree  to  abolish  the  use  of  the  mil¬ 
itia,  and  establish  a  standing  army.  I  conceive  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  ought  to  have  power  over  the  militia,  but  it  ought  to  have  some 
bounds,  if  gentlemen  say,  that,  the  militia  of  a  neighboring  state 
is  not  sufficient,  the  government  ought  to  have  power  to  call  forth 
those  of  other  states,  the  most  convenient  and  contiguous.  But  in 
this  case  the  consent  of  the  state  legislatures  ought  to  be  had.  On 
real  emergencies  this  consent  will  never  be  denied  ;  each  state  being 
concerned  in  the  safety  of  the  rest.  This  power  may  he  restricted 
without  any  danger.  I  wish  such  an  amendment  as  this,  that  the 
militia  of,  any  state,  should  not  be  marched  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
adjoining  state,  and  if  it  be  necessary  to  draw  them  from  one  end  of 
the  continent  to  the  other,  I  wish  such  a  check  as  the  consent  of  the 
state  legislature,  to  be  provided.  Gentlemen  may  say,  that  this 
would  impede  the  government ;  and  that  the  state  legislatures  would 
counteract  it,  by  refusing  their  consent.  This  argument  may  be  ap¬ 
plied  to  all  objections  whatsoever.  How  is  this  compared  to  the 
British  constitution?  Though  the  king  may  declare  war,  the  parlia¬ 
ment  has  the  means  of  carrying  it  on.  It  is  not  so  here.  Congress 
can  do  both.  Were  it  not  for  that  check  in  the  British  government', 
the  monarch  would  be  a  despot.  When  a  war  is  necessary  for  the. 
benefit  of  the  nation,  the  means  ot  carrying  it  on  are  never  denied-. 
If  any  unjust  requisitions  be  made  on  parliament,!  t  will  be,  as  it  ought 
to  be,  refused.  The  same  principle  ought  to  beobserved  in  cur  govern¬ 
ment.  In  times  of  real  danger,  the  states  will  have  the  same  en- 
thssiasfn  in  aiding  the  general  government,  and  granting  its  de¬ 
mands,  which  is  seen  in  E ngland,  when  the  king  is  engaged  in  a  war 


Mason,] 


VIRGINIA. 


355 


apparently  for  the  interest  of  the  nation.  This  power  is  necessary, 
but  we  ought  to  guard  against  danger.  If  ever  they  attempt  to  har- 
rass  and  abuse  the  militia,  they  may  abolish  them,  and  raise  a  stan¬ 
ding  army  in  their  stead.  There  are  various  ways  of  destroying  the 
militia,  A  standing  army  may  be  perpetually  established  in  their 
stead.  I  abominate  and  detest  the  idea  of  a  government,  where 
there  is  a  standing  army.  The  militia  may  be  here  destroyed  by 
that  method  which  has  been  practiced  in  other  parts\of  the  world 
before.  That  is,  by  rendering  them  useless,  by  disarming  them. 
Under  various  pretences,  congress  may  neglect  to  provide  for  arm¬ 
ing  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  the  state  governments  cannot  do 
it,  for  congress  has  an  exclusive  right  to  arm  them,  &c.  Here  is  a 
line  of  division  drawn  between  them  the  state  and  o-eneral  orovern- 

c  O 

ments.  The  power  over  the  militia  is  divided  between  them.  The 
national  government  has  an  exclusive  right  to  provide  for  arming, 
organizing,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  part 
of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States. 
The  state  governments  have  the  power  of  appointing  the  officers, 
and  of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by 
congress,  if  they  should  think  proper  to  prescribe  any.  Should  the 
national  government  wish  to  render  the  militia  useless,  they  may 
neglect  them,  and  let  them  perish,  in  order  to  have  a  pretence  of  es¬ 
tablishing  a  standing  army. 

No  man  has  a  greater  regard  for  the  military  gentlemen  than  I 
have.  I  admire  their  intrepidity,  perseverance,  and  valor.  But 
when  once  a  standing  army  is  established,  in  any  country,  the  peo¬ 
ple  lose  their  liberty.  When  against  a  regular  and  disciplined  army, 
yeomanry  are  the  only  defence — yeomanry,  unskilful  and  unarmed, 
what  chance  is  there  for  preserving  freedom!  Give  me  leave  to  re¬ 
cur  to  the  page  of  history,  to  warn  you  of  your  present  danger. 
Recollect  the  history  of  most  nations  of  the  world.  What  havoc, 
desolation,  and  destruction,  have  been  perpetrated  by  standing  ar¬ 
mies!  An  instance  within  the  memory  of  some  of  this  house,  will 
shew  us  how  our  militia  may  be  destroyed.  Forty  years  ago,  when 
the  resolution  of  enslaving  America  was  formed  in  Great  Britain,  the 
British  parliament  was  advised  by  an  artful  man,*  who  was  gover¬ 
nor  of  Pennsylvania,  to  disarm  the  people.  That  it  was  the  best 
and  most  effectual  way  to  enslave  them.  But  that  they  should 
not  do  it  openly;  but  to  weaken  them  and  let  them  sink  grad¬ 
ually,  by  totally  disusing  and  neglecting  the  militia.  [Here  Mr. 
Mason  quoted  sundry  passages  to  this  effect.]  This  was  a  most  ini¬ 
quitous  project.  Why  should  we  not  provide  against  the  danger  of 
liavino-  our  militia,  our  real  an*d  natural  strength,  destroyed?  The 

*Sir  William  Keith. 


256 


DEBATES. 


[Madisohv 


general  government  ought  at  the  same  time  to  have  some  such  s 
power.  But  we  need  not  give  them  power  to  abolish  our  militia,, 
if  they  neglect  to  arm  them,  and  prescribe  proper  discipline,  they 
will  be  of  no  use.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  military  profession. 

1  beg  to  be  excused  for  any  errors  I  may  commit  with  respect  to  it. 
But  I  stand  on  the  general  principles  of  freedom,  whereon- 1  dare  to- 
meet  any  one.  I  wish,  that  in  case  the  general  government  should' 
neglect  to  arm  and  discipline  the  militia,  that  there  should  be  an  ex¬ 
press  declaration,  that  the  state  governments  might  arm  and  discip¬ 
line  them.  With  this  single  exception  I  would  agree  to  this  part* 
as  I  am  conscious  the  government  ought  to  have  the  power. 

They  may  effect  the  destruction  of  the  militia,  by  rendering  the 
service  odious  to  the  people  themselves,  by  harrassing  them  from 
one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other,,  and  by  keeping  them  under 
martial  law. 

The  English  parliament  never  pass  a  mutiny  bill  but  for  one 
year.  This  is  necessary,  for  otherwise  the  soldiers  would  be  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  officers,  and  the  army  would  be  dissolved. 
One  mutiny  bill  has  been  here  in  force  since  the  revolution.  I  hum¬ 
bly  conceive  there  is  extreme  danger  of  establishing  cruel  martial 
regulations.  If  at  any  time  our  rulers  should  have  unjust  and  ini¬ 
quitous  designs  against  our  liberties,  and  should  wish  to  establish  a 
standing  army,  the  first  attempt  would  be  to  render  the  service  and 
use  of  militia  odious  to  the  people  themselves;  subjecting  them  to 
unnecessary  severity  of  discipline  in  time  of  peace,  confining  them 
under  martial  law,  and  disgusting  them  so  much,  as  to  make  them 
cry  out,  give  us  a  standing  army!  I  would  wish  to  have  some  check 
to  exclude  this  danger;  as,  that  the  militia  should  never  be  subject 
to  martial  law,  but  in  time  of  war.  I  consider  and  fear  the  natural 
propensity  of  rulers  to  oppress  the  people.  I  wish  only  to  prevent 
them  from  doing  evil.  By  these  amendments,  I  would  give  neces¬ 
sary  powers,  but  no  unnecessary  power.  If  the  clause  stands  as  it 
is  now,  it  will  take  from  the  state  legislatures  what  divine  provi- 
donce  has  given  to  every  individual — the  means  of  self-defence. 
Unless  it  be  moderated,  in  some  degree,  it  will  ruin  us,,  and  intro-* 
duce  a  standing  army. 

Mr  MADISON.-— Mr  Chairman,  I  most  cordially  agree  with  the 
honorable  member  last  up,  that  a  standing  army  is  one  of  the  great¬ 
est  mischiefs  that  can  possibly  happen.  It  is  a  great  recommenda¬ 
tion  for  this  system,  that  it  provides  against  this  evil  more  than  any 
other  system  known  to  us,  and  particularly  more  than  the  old  sys¬ 
tem  of  confederation.  The  most  effectual  way  to  guard  against  a 
standing  army,  is  to  render  it  unnecessary.  The  most  effectual  way 
to  render  it  unnecessary,  is  to  give  the  general  government  full 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA, 


35T 


power  to  call  forth  the  militia,  and  exert  the  whole  natural  strength 
of  the  union  when  necessary.  Thus  you  will  furnish  the  people 
with  sure  and  certain  protection,  without  recurring  to  this  evil ;  and 
the  certainty  of  this  protection  from  the  whole,  will  be  a  strong  in¬ 
ducement  to  individual  exertion.  Does  the  organization  of  the  go¬ 
vernment  warrant  a  belief,  that  this  power  will  be  abused!  Can  we 
believe  that  a  government  of  a  federal  nature,  consisting  of  many  co¬ 
equal  sovereignties,  and  particularly  having  one  brancli  chosen  from 
the  people,  would  drag  the  militia  unnecessarily  to  an  immense  dis¬ 
tance!  This,  Sir,  would  be  unworthy  the  ’most  arbitrary  despot. 
They  have  no  temptation  whatever  to  abuse  this  power  ;  such  abuse 
could  only  answer  the  purpose  of  exciting  the  universal  indignation 
of  the  people,  and  drawing  on  themselves  the  general  hatred  and  de¬ 
testation  of  their  country. 

I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  honorable  gentleman  has  not  con¬ 
sidered  in  all  its  consequences,  the  amendment  he  has  proposed. 
Would  this  be  an  equal  protection,  Sir!  Or  would  it  not  be  a  most 
partial  provision!  Some  states  have  three  or  four  states  in  contact. 
Were  this  siate  invaded,  as  it  is  bounded  by  several  states,  the  mi¬ 
litia  of  three  or  four  states  would,  by  this  proposition,  be  obliged  to 
come  to  our  aid;  and  those  from  some  of  the  states  would  come  a 
far  greater  distance  than  those  of  others.  There  are  other  states, 
which  if  invaded,  could  be  assisted  by  the  militia  of  one  state  only, 
there  being  several  states  which  bordei  but  on  one  state.  Georgia 
and  New-Hampshire  would  be  infinitely  less  safe  than  those  of  the 
other  states.  Were  we  to  adopt  this  amendment,  we  should  set  up 
those  states  as  butts  fqr  invasions,  invite  foreign  enemies  to  attack 
them,  and  expose  them  to  peculiar  hardships  and  dangers.  Were 
the  militia  confined  to  any  limited  distance  from  their  respective 
places  of  abode,  it  w'ould  produce  equal,  nay,  more,  inconveniences. 
•The  principles  of  equality,  and  reciprocal  aid,  would  be  destroyed 
in  either  case.  *f 

I  cannot  conceive  that  this  constitution,  by  givingtbe  general  go¬ 
vernment  the  power  of  arming  the  militia,  takes  it  away  from  the 
state  governments.  The  power  is  concurrent,  and  not  exclusive. 
Have  we  not  found  from  experience,  that  while  the  power  of  arming 
and  governing  of  the  militia  has  been  solely  vested'  in  the  state  leg¬ 
islatures,  they  were  neglected  and  rendered  unfit  for  immediate  ser¬ 
vice!  Every  state  neglected  too  much  this  most  essential  object. 
But  the  general  government  can  do  it  more  effectually.  Have  we 
not  also  found,  that  the  militia  of  one  state  were  almost  always  in¬ 
sufficient  to  succour  its  liarrassed  neighbor!  Did  all  the  states  fur¬ 
nish  their  quotas  of  militia  with  sufficient  promptitude!  The  assis¬ 
tance  of  one  state  will  be  of  little  avail  to  repel  invasion.  But  the 


353 


DEBATES. 


[Madison* 


general  head  of  the  whole  union  can  do  it  with  effect,  if  it  be  vested 
with  power  to  use  the  aggregate  strength  of  the  union.  If  the  regu¬ 
lation  of  the  militia  were  to  be  committed  to  the  executive  authority 
alone,  there  might  be  reason  for  providing  restrictions.  But,  Sir,  it 
is  the  legislative  authority  that  has  this  power.  They  must  make  a 
law  for  the  purpose. 

The  honorable  member  is  under  another  mistake.  He  wishes 
martial  law  to  be  exercised  only  in  time  of  war,  under  an  idea  that 
congress  can  establish  it  in  time  of  peace.  The  states  are  to  have 
the  authority  of  training  the  militia  according  to  the  congressional 
discipline;  and  of  governing  them  at  all  times,  when  not  in  the 
service  of  the  union. — Congress  is  to  govern  such  part  of  them  as 
may  be  employed  in  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
such  part  only  can  be  subject  to  martial  law..  The  gentlemen  in 
opposition  have  drawn  a  most  tremendous  picture  of  the  constitution 
in  this  respect.  Without  considering  that  the  power  was  absolutely 
indispensible,  they  have  alarmed  us  with  the  possible  abuse  of  it,  but 
have  shewn  no  inducement  or  motive  to  tempt  them  to  such  abuse. 
Would  the  legislature  of  the  state  drag  the  militia  of  the  eastern 
shore  to  the  western  frontiers,  or  those  of  the  western  frontiers  to 
the  eastern  shore,  if  the  local  militia  were  sufficient  to  effect  the  in¬ 
tended  purpose1?  There  is  something  so  preposterous,  and  so  full 
of  mischief  in  the  idea  of  dragging  the  militia  unnecessarily  from 
one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other,  that  I  think  there  can  be  no 
ground  of  apprehension.  If  you  limit  their  power  over  the  militia 
you  give  them  a  pretext  for  substituting  a  standing  army.  If  you 
put  it  in  the  power  of  the  state  governments  to  refuse  the  militia,  by 
requiring  their  consent,  you  destroy  the  general  government,  and 
sacrifice  particular  states.  The  same  principles  and  motives  which 
produce  disobedience  to  requisitions,  will  produce  refusal  in  this 
case. 

The  restrictions  which  the  honorable  gontleman  mentioned  to  be 
in  the  British  constitution,  ate  all  provisions  against  the  power  of 
the  executive  magistrate.  But  the  house  of  commons  may.  if  they 
be  so  disposed,  sacrifice  the  interest  of  their  constituents  in  all  those 
cases.  They  may  prolong  the  duration  of  mutiny  bills,  and  grant 
supplies  to  the  king  to  carry  on  an  impolitic  war.  But  they  have  no 
motives  to  do  so.  For  they  have  strong  motives  to  do  their  duty. 
We  have  more  ample  security  than  the  people  of  Great  Britain.  The 
powers  ot  the  government  are  more  limited  and  guarded,  and  our 
representatives  are  more  responsible  than  the  members  of  the  British 
house  of  commons. 

Mr.  CLAY  apprehended  that  by  this  power,  our  militia  might.be 
sent  to  the  Mississippi.  He  observed  that  the  sheriff  might  raise 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


359 

the  posse  comitatus  to  execute  the  laws.  He  feared  it  would  lead 
to  the  establishment  of  a  military  government,  as  the  militia  were 
to  be  called  forth  to  put  the  laws  into  execution.  He  asks  why  this 
mode  was  preferred  to  the  old  established  custom  of  executing  the 
1  aws? 

Mr.  MADISON  answered,  that  the  power  existed  in  all  countries, 
that  the  militia  might  be  called  forth  for  that  purpose,  under  the 
laws  of  this  state  and  every  other  state  in  the  unfqn.  That  public 
force  must  be  used  when  the  resistance  to  the  laws  required  it ; 
otherwise  the  society  itself  must  be  destroyed.  That  the  mode  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  the  gentleman  might  not  be  sufficient  on  every  occasion, 
as  the  sheriff  must  be  necessarily  restricted  to  the  posse  of  his  own 
county.  If  the  posse  of  one  county  were  insufficient  to  overcome 
the  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  laws,  this  power  must  be  re¬ 
sorted  to.  He  did  not  by  any  means  admit,  that  the  old  mode  was 
superceded  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  one.  And  it  was  obvious 
to  him,  that  when  the  civil  power  was  sufficient,  this  mode  would 
never  be  put  in  practice. 

Mr.  HENRY.  Mr.  Chairrpan,  in  my  judgment  the  friends  of  the 
opposition  have  to  act  cautiously.  We  must'  make  a  firm  stand  be¬ 
fore  we  decide.  I  was  heard  to  say,  a  few  days  ago,  that  the  sword 
and  purse  were  the  two  great  instruments  of  government,  and  I  pro¬ 
fessed  great  repugnance  at  parting  with  the  purse,  without  any  con¬ 
trol  to  the  proposed1  system  of  government.  And  now,  when  we 
proceed  in  this  formidable  compact,  and  come  to  the  national  defence, 
the  sword,  1  am  persuaded,  we  ought  to  be  still  more  cautious  and 
circumspect ;  for  I  feel  still  more  reluctance  to  surrender  this  most 

valuable  of  rights. 

“  * 

The  honorable  member  who  has  risen  to  explain  several  parts  of 
the  system,  was  pleased  to  say,  that  the  best  way  of  avoiding  the 
danger  of  a  standing  army,  was,  to  have  the  militia  in  such  a  way 
as  to  render  it  unnecessary,  and  that  as  the  new  government  would 
have  power  over  the  militia,  we  should  have  no  standing  army,  it 
being  unnecessary. — This  argument  destroys  itself.  It  demands  a 
power,  and  denies  the  probability  of  its-  exercise.  There  are  suspi¬ 
cions  of  power  on  one  hand,  and  absolute  and  unlimited  confidence 
on  the  other.  I  hope  to  be  one  of  those  who  have  a  large  share  of 
suspicion.  I  leave  it  to  this  house,  if  there  be  not  too  small  a  por¬ 
tion  on  the  other  side  ;  by  giving  up  too  much  to  that  government, 
you  can  easily  see  which  is  the  worst  of  two  extremes.  Too  much 
suspicion  may  be  corrected.  If  you  give  too  little  power  to-day,  you 
may  give  more  to-morrow.  But  the  reverse  of  the  proposition  will 
not  hold.  If  you  give  too  much  power  to-day,  you  cannot  retake 
i  to-mprrow  :  for  to  morrow  will  never  come  for  that  purpose,  if 


360  DEBATES.  [Henr*; 

you  have  the  fate  of  other  nations,  you  will  never  see  it.  It  is  easier 
to  supply  deficiencies  of  power,  than  to  take  back  excess  ol  power. 
This  no  man  can  deny. 

But,  says  the  honorable  member,  congress  will  keep  the  militia 
armed,  or  in  other  wrords,  they  will  do  their  duty.  Pardon  me,  if  1 
am  too  jealous  and  suspicious  to  confide  in  this  remote  possibility. 
My  honorable  friend  went  on  a  supposition  that  the  American  rulers, 
like  all  others,  will  depart  from  their  duty  without  bars  and  checks. 
No  government  can  be  safe  without  checks.  Then  he  told  us,  they 
had  on  temptation  to  violate  their  duty,  and  that  it  would  be  their 
interest  to  perform  it.  Does  lie  think  you  are  to  trust  men  who  cam 
not  have  separate  interests  frorri  .the  people!  It  is  a  novelty  in  the 
political  world  (as  great  a  novelty  as  the  system  itself)  to  find  rulers 
without  private  interests,  and-views  of  personal  emoluments  and  am¬ 
bition.  His  supposition,  that  they  will  not  depart  from  their  duty, 
as  having  no  interest  to  do  so,  is  no  satisfactory  answer  to  my  mind, 
'This  is  no  check.  The  government  may  be  most  intolerable  and  de¬ 
structive,  if  this  be  our  only  security. 

My  honorable  friend  attacked  the  honorable  gentleman  with  uni¬ 
versal  principles.  That  in  all  nations  and  ages,  rulers  have  been, 
actuated  by  motives  of  individual  interest,  and  private  emoluments, 
and  that  in  America  it  would  be  so  also.  I  hope,  before  we  part 
with  this  great  bulwark,  this  noble  palladium  of  safety,  we  will  have 
such  checks  interposed  as  will  render  us  secure.  The  militia,  sir, 
is  our  ultimate  safety.  VVe  can  have  no  security  without  it.  But 
then,  he'  says,  that  the  power  of  arming  and  organizing  the  mili¬ 
tia  is  concurrent,  and  to  be  equally  exercised  by  the  general  and 
state  governments.  I  am  sure,  and  I  trust  in  the  candour  of  that 
gentleman,  that  he  will  recede  from  that  opinion,  when  his  recollec¬ 
tion  will  be  called  to  the  particular  clause  which  relates  to  it. 

As  my  worthy  friend  said,  there  is  a  positive  partition  of  power 
between  the  two  governments.  rTo  congress  is  given  the  power  of 
“  arming,  organizing,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  governing 
such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United 
.States.”  To  the  state  legislatures  is  given  the  power  of  “  appoint¬ 
ing  the  officers  and  training  the  militia  according  to  the  discipline 
prescribed  by  congress.”  I  observed  before,  that  if  the  power  be 
concurrent  as  to  arming  them,  it  is  concurrent  in  other  respects.  If 
the  states  have  the  right  of  arming  them,  &c.,  concurrently,  congress 
has  a  concurrent  power  of  appointing  the  officers  and  training  the  mili¬ 
tia.  If  congress  have  that  power,  it  is  absurd.  To  admit  this  mu¬ 
tual  concurrence  of  powers  will  carry  you  into  endless  absurdity. 
That  congress  has  nothing  exclusive  on  the  one  hand,  nor  the  states 
on  the  other.  The  rational  explanation  is*  that  congress  shall  have 


361 


Henrv.]  VIRGINIA. 

exclusive  power  of  arming  them,  &c.,  and  that  the  state  govern- 
ments  shall  have  exclusive  power  of  appointing  the  officers,  &c. 
Let  me  put  it  into  another  licrht. 

May  we  not  discipline  and  arm  them  as  well  as  congress,  if  the 
power  be  concurrent]  So  that  our  militia  shall  have  °two  sets  of 
arms,  double  sets  of  regimentals.  &c.  and  thus,  at  a  very  great  cost 
we  shall  be  doubly  armed.  The  great  object  is  that  every  man  be 
armed.  But  can  the  people  afford  to  pay  foi*  double  sets  of  arms, 
&cl  Every  one  who  is  able  may  have  a  gun.  But  we  have  learn¬ 
ed  by  experience,  that  necessary  a6  it  is  to  have  arms,  and  though 
oni  assembly  has,  by  a  succession  of  laws  for  many  years,  endeav¬ 
ored  to  have  the  militia  completely  armed,  it  is  still  far  from  being 
the  case.  When  this  power  is  given  up  to  congress  without  limi¬ 
tation  or  bounds,  how  will  your  militia  be  armed?  You  trust  to 
chance  ;  for  sure  I  am,  that  that  nation  which  shall  trust  its  liber¬ 
ties  in  other  hands,  cannot  long  exist.  If  gentlemen  are  serious, 
when  they  suppose  a  concurrent  powder,  where  can  be  the  impolicy 
to  amend  it?  Or,  in  othei  words,  to  say  that  congress  shall  not  arm 
or  discipline  them,  till  the  states  shall  have  refused  or  neglected  to 
do  it.?  This  is  my  object.  I  only  wish  to  bring  it  to  what  they 
themselves  say  is  implied.  Implication  is  to  be  the  foundation  of 
our  civil  liberties,  and  when  you  speak  of  arming  the  militia  by  a 
concurrence  of  power,  you  use  implication.  But  implication  will 
not  save  you,  when  a  strong  army  of  veterans  comes  upon  you. 
You  would  be  laughed  at  by  the  whole  world,  for  trusting  your 
safety  implicitly  to  implication. 

The  argument  of  my  honorable  friend,  was,  that  rulers  might 
tyrannize.  The  answer  he  received,  was,  that  they  will  not.  In 
saying  that  they  would  not,  he  admitted  they  might.  In  this  great? 
this  essential  part  of  the  constitution,  if  you  are  safe,  it  is  not  from 
the  constitution,  but  from  the  virtues  of  the  men  in  government.  If 
gentlemen  are  willing  to  trust  themselves  and  posterity  to  so  slen¬ 
der  and  improbable  a  chance,  they  have  greater  strength  of  nerves 
than  I  have. 

The  honorable  gentleman  in  endeavoring  to  answer  the  question, 
why  the  militia  were  to  be  called  forth  to  execute  the  laws,  said 
that  the  civil  power  would  probably  do  it.  He  is  driven  to  say? 
that  the  civil  power  may  do  it  instead  of  the  militia.  Sir,  the  mili¬ 
tary  power  ought  not  to  interpose  till  the  civil  power  refuse.  If 
this  be  the  spirit  of  your  new  constitution,  that  the  laws  are  to  be 
enforced  by  military  coercion,  we  may  easily  divine  the  happy  con¬ 
sequences  which  will  result  from  it.  The  civil  power  is  not  to  be 
employed  at  all.  If  it  be,  shew  me  it.  I  read  it  attentively,  and 
could  see  nothing  to  warrant  a  belief,  that  the  civil  power  can  be  cal- 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


cm 

led  for.  I  would  be  glad  to  see  the  power  that  authorises  congress 
to  do  so.  The  sheriff  will  be  aided  by  military  force.  The  most 
wanton  excesses  may  be  committed  under  colour  of  this.  For  eve¬ 
ry  man  in  office,  in  the  states,  is  to  take  an  oath  to  support  it  in  aU 
ks  operations.  The  honorable  gentleman  said,  in  answer  to  the 
objection,  that  the  militia  might  be  marched  from  New-Hampshire 
to  Georgia,  that  the  members  of  the  government  would  not  attempt 
to  excite  the  indignation  of  the  people.  Here  again  we  have  the  ge¬ 
neral  unsatisfactory  answer,  that  they  will  be  virtuous,  and  that 

there  is  no  danger. 

© 

Will  gentlemen  be  satisfied  with  an  answer,  which  admits  of  dan¬ 
gers  and  abuses,  if  they  be  wicked.2  Let  us  put  it  out  of  their 
power  to  do  mischief.  I  am  convinced  there  is  no  safety  in  the  pa¬ 
per  on  the  table  as  it  stands  now.  I  am  sorry  to  have  an  occasion 
to  pass  an  eulogium  on  the  British  government,  as  gentlemen  may 
object  to  it.  But  how  natural  it  is,  when  comparing  deformities  to 
beauty,  to  be  struck  with  the  superiority  of  the  British  government 
to  that  system'?  In  England,  self-love— ^-self-interest,  powerfully 
stimulates  the  executive  magistrate  to  advance  the  prosperity  of  the 
nation.  In  the  most  distant  part  he  feels  the  loss  of  his  subjects. 
He  will  see  the  great  advantage  of  his  posterity  inseparable  from  the. 
felicity  of  his  people. — Man  is  a  fallen  creature,  a  fallible  being, 
and  cannot  be  depended  on  without  self-love.  Your  president  will 
not  have  the  same  motives  of  self-love  to  impel  him  to  favor  your 
interests.  His  political  character  is  but  transient,  and  he  will  pro¬ 
mote  as  much  as  possible,  his  own  private  interests.  He  will  con¬ 
clude,  the  constant  observation  has  been,  that  he  will  abuse  his 
power,  and  that  it  is  expected.  The  king  of  England  has  a  more 
permanent  interest.  His  stock — his  family  is  to  continue  in  pos¬ 
session  of  the -same  emolument.  The  more  flourishing  his  nation, 
the  more  formidable  and  powerful  is  he.  The  sword  and  purse  arc 
r«ot  united  in  that  government  in  the  same  hands,  as  in  this  system. 
Does  not  infinite  security  result  from  a  separation? 

But  it  is  said,  that  our  congress  are  more  responsible  than  the 
British  parliament.  It  appears  to  me,  that  there  is  no  real,  but 
there  may  be  some  specious  responsibility.  If  congress  in  the  exe¬ 
cution  of  their  unbounded  powers  shall  have  done  wrong,  how  will 
you  come  at  them  to  punish  them,  if  they  are  at  the  distance  of  500 
miles?  At  such  a  great  distance  they  will  evade  responsibility  alto¬ 
gether.  If  you  have  given  up  your  militia,  and  congress  shall  refuse 
to  arm  them,  you  have  lost  every  thing.  Your  existence  will  be 
precarious,  because  you  depend  on  others,  whose  interests  are  not 
jldTected  by  your  infelicity.  If  congress  are  to  arm  us  exclusively, 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


363 


the  man  of  New-Hampshire  may  vote  for  or  against  it,  as  well  as 
the  Virginian.  The  great  distance  and  difference  between  the  two 
places,  render  it  impossible  that  the  people  of  that  country  can  know 
or  pursue  what  will  promote  our  inconvenience.  I  therefore  con¬ 
tend,  that  if  congress  do  not  arm  the  militia,  we  ought  to  provide 
for  it  ourselves.  f 

Mr  NICHOLAS — Mr  Chairman,  the  great  object  of  government 
in  every  country,  is  security  and  public  defence.  I  suppose,  there¬ 
fore,  that  what  we  ought  to  attend  to  here,  is  what  is  the  best  mode 
of  enabling  the  general  government  to  protect  us1?  One  of  three 
ways  must  be  pursued  for  this  purpose.  We  must  either  empower 
them  to  employ,  and  rely  altogether  on  a  standing  army,  or  depend 
altogether  on  militia;  or  else  we  must  enable  them  to. use  the  one 
or  the  other  of  these  two  ways,  as  may  be  found  most  expedient. 
The  least  reflection  will  satisfy  us,  that  the  convention  has  adopted 
the  only  proper  method.  If  a  standing  army  were  alone  to  be  em¬ 
ployed,  such  an  army  must  be  kept  up  in  time  of  peace  as  would  be 
sufficient  in  wrar.  The  dangers  of  such  an  army  are  so  striking, 
that  every  man  would  oppose  the  adoption  of  this  government,  had 
it  been  proposed  by  it,  as  the  only  mode  of  defence.  Would  it  be 
safe  to  depend  on  militia  alone,  without  the  agency  of  regular  forces 
even  in  time  of  war?  Were  we  to  be  invaded  by  a  powerful  discip¬ 
lined  army,  would  we  be  safe  with  militia?  Could  men,  unacquain?- 
ed  with  the  hardships,  and  unskilled  in  the  ’  discipline  of  war — men 
only  inured  to  the  peaceable  occupations  of  domestic  life,  encount¬ 
er  with  success  the  most  skilful  veterans,  inured  to  the  fatigues 
and  toils  of  campaigns?  Although  some  people  are  pleased  with 
the  theory  of  reliance  on  militia,  as  the  sole  defence  of  a  nation,  yet 
I  think  it  will  be  found  in  practice,  to  be,  by  no  means,  adequatc*. 
Its  inadequacy  is  proved  by  the  experience  of  other  nations.  But 
were  it  fully  adequate,  it  would  be  unequal.  If  war  be  supported 
by  militia,  it  is  by  personal  service.  The  poor  man  does  as  much 
as  the  rich.  Is  this  just?  What  is  the  consequence  when  war  is 
carried  on  by  regular  troops?  They  are  paid  by  taxes  raised  from 
the  people,  according  to  their  property,  and,  then  the  rich  man  pays 
an  adequate  share. 

But,  if  you  confine  yourselves  to  militia  alone,  the  poor  man  ife 
oppressed.  The  rich  man  exempts  himself  by  furnishing  a  substi¬ 
tute.  And,  although  it  be  oppressive  to  the  poor,  is  it  not  advan¬ 
tageous  to  the  rich.  For  what  he  gives  would  pay  regular  troops. 
It  is  therefore  neither  safe  nor  just  to  depend  entirely  on  militia. 
As  these  two  ways  are  ineligible,  let  us  consider  the  third  method. 
Does  this  constitution  put  this  on  a  proper  footing?  It  enables  cor.. 


364 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas. 

gress  to  raise  an  army  when  necessary,  or  to  call  forth  the  militia 
when  necessary.  What  will  be  the  consequence  of  their  having 
these  two  powers'?  Till  there  be  a  necessity  for  an  army  to  be 
raised,  militia  will  do.  And  when  an  army  will  be  raised,  the  mil¬ 
itia  will  still  be  employed,  which  will  render  a  less  numerous  army 
sufficient.  By  these  means,  there  will  be  a  sufficient  defence  for  the 
country,  without  having  a  standing  army  altogether,  or  oppressing 
the  people.  The  worthy  member  has  said,  that  it  ought  to  be  a  part 
of  the  constitution  that  the  militia  ought  not  to  go  out  of  the  state 
without  the  consent  of  the  state  legislature.  What  would  be  the 
consequence  of  this?  The  general  defence  is  trusted  to  the  general 
government.  How  is  it  to  protect  the  union?  It  must  apply  to  the 
state  governments  before  it  can  do  it.  Is  this  right?  Is  it  not  sub¬ 
jecting  the  general  will  to  the  particular  will,  and  exposing  the  gen¬ 
eral  defence  to  the  particular  caprice  of  the  members  of  the  state  go¬ 
vernments?  This  would  entirely  defeat  the  power  given  to  congress, 
to  provide  for  the  general  defence-;  and  unless  the  militia  were  to 
aid  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  when  resisted,  the  other  powers  of 
congress  would  be  nugatory.  But  he  has  said,  that  this  idea  is  jus¬ 
tified  by  the  English  history — for  that  the  king  has  the  power  of  the 
sword,  but  must  apply  to  the  commons  for  the  means  of  using  it — 
for  the  purse.  This  is  not  a  similar  case.  The  king  and  com¬ 
mons  are  parts  of  the  same  government.  But  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  is  separate  and  perfectly  distinct  from  the  individual  govern¬ 
ments  of  the  states.  Should  congress  be  obliged  to  apply  to  the 
particular  states  for  the  militia,  they  may  be  refused,  and  the  govern¬ 
ment  overturned.  To  make  the  case  similar,  he  ought  to  show  us 
that  the  king  and  parliament  were  obliged  to  call  on  some  other  pow¬ 
er  to  raise  forces,  and  provide  for  the  means  of  carrying  on  war,  for, 
otherwise  there  is  no  similitude. 

If  the  general  government  be  obliged  to  apply  to  the  states,  a  part 
will  be  thereby  rendered  superior  to  the  whole. — What  are  to  be  the 
effects  of  the  amendments  proposed?  to  destroy  one  of  the  most  benefi¬ 
cial  parts  of  the  constitution;  put  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  general 
government,  and  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  state  governments  to  take 
away  the  aid  of  the  militia?  Who  will  be  most  likely  to  want  the 
aid  of  the  militia?  The  southern  states  from  their  situation.  Who 
are  the  most  likely  to  be  called  for?  The  eastern  states,  from  their 
strength,  &c.  Should  we  put  it  in  the  power  of  particular  states  to 
refuse  the  militia,  it  ought  to  operate  against  ourselves.  It  is  the 
height  of  bad  policy  to  alter  this  part  of  the  system.  But  it  is  said, 
the  militia  are  to  be  disarmed.  Will  they  be  worse  armed  than  they 
are  now?  Still,  as  my  honorable  friend  said,  the  states  would  have 
power  to  arm  them.  The  power  of  arming  them,  is  concurrent  be¬ 
tween  the  general  and  state  governments.  For  the  power  of  arming 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


315 


them  rested  in  the  state  governments  before,  and  although  the  power 
be  given  to  the  general  government,  yet  it  is  not  given  exclusively. 
For,  in  every  instance,  where  the  constitution  intends  that  the  o-ene- 
ral  government  shall  exercise  any  power  exclusively  of  the  state  go¬ 
vernments,  words  of  exclusion  are  particular  inserted.  Consequent¬ 
ly,  in  every  case  where  such  words  of  exclusion  are  not  inserted,  the 
power  is- concurrent  to  the  state  governments  and  congress,  unless 
where  it  is  impossible  that  the  power  should  be  exercised  by  both. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  an  absurdity  to  say,  that  Virginia  may  arm  the 
militia  should  congress  neglect  to  arm  them.  But  it  would  absurd 
to  say,  that  we  should  arm  them  after  congress  had  armed  them, 
when  it  should  be  unnecessary  ;  or  that  congress  should  appoint  the 
officers  and  train  the  militia  when  it  is  expressly  excepted  from  their 
powers.  .  s 

But  his  great  uneasiness  is,  that  the  militia  may  he  under  mar¬ 
tial  law  when  not  under  duty.  A  little  attention  will  be  sufficient 
to  remove  this  apprehension.  The  congress  is  to  have  power 
“  to  provide  for  the  arming,  organizing,  and  disciplining  the  militia, 
and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States.”  Another  part  tells  you  that  they 
are  to  provide  for  calling  them- forth,  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions.  These  powers 
only  amount  to  this;  that  they  can  only  call  them  forth  in  these 
three  cases  ;  and  that  they  can  only  govern  such  part  of  them  as  may 
be  in  the  actual  service  of  the  United  Ststes.  This  causes  a  suffi-- 
cient  security,  that  they  will  not  be  under  martial  law  but  when  in 
actual  service.  If,  sir,  a  mutiny  bill  has  continued  since  the  revc^ 
lution,  recollect  that  this  is  done  under  the  present  happy  govern¬ 
ment.  Under  the  new  government,  no  appropriation  of  money,  to 
the  use  of  raising  or  supporting  an  army,  shall  be  for  a  longer  term 
than  two  years.  The  president  is  to  command.  But  the  regulation 
of  the  army  and  navy  is  given  to  congress.  Our  representatives  wil  1 
he  a  powerful  check  here.  The  influence  of  the  commons  in  En¬ 
gland  in  this  case  is  very  predominant.  But  the  worthy  member  on 
the  other  side  of  the  house,  has  said,  that  the  militia  are  the  great 
bulwark  of  the  nation,  and  wishes  to  take  no  step  to  bring  them  into 
disuse.  What  is  the  inference!  He  wishes  to  see  the  militia  em¬ 
ployed.  The  constitution  provides  what  he  wants.  This  is,  to 
bring  them  frequently  into  use.  If  he  expects,  that  by  depriving  the 
general  government  of  the  power  of  calling  them  into  more  frequent 
use,  they  will  be  rendered  more  useful  and  expert,  he  is  greatly  de¬ 
ceived.  W'e  ought  to  part  with  the  power  to  use  the  militia  to  some 
body.  To  whom!  Ought  we  not  to  part  with  it  for  the  general  de¬ 
fence!  II  you  give  it  not  to  congress,  it  may  be  denied  by  the  states 


366  DEBATES.  [Madison 

If  you  withhold  it,  you  render  a  standing  army  absolutely  necessary 
For  if  they  have  not  the  militia,  they  must  have  such  a  body  of 
troops  as  will  be  necessary  for  the  general  defence  of  the  union. 

It  was  said  by  the  gentleman,  that  there  was  something  singular 
in  this  government,  in  saying,  that  the  militia  shall  be  called  forth 
to  execute  the  laws  of  the  union.  There  is  a  great  difference  be- 
tween  having  the  power  in  three  cases,  and  in  all  cases.  They  can¬ 
not  call  them  forth  for  any  purpose  than  to  execute  the  laws,  sup¬ 
press  insurrections,  and  repel  evasions.  And  can  any  thing  be  more 
demonstrably  obvious,  than  that  the  laws  ought  to  be  enforced  if  re¬ 
sisted,  and  insurrections  quelled,  and  foreign  invasions  repelled? 
But  it  is  asked,  why  has  not  the  constitution  declared,  that  the  civil 
power  shall  be  employed  to  execute  the  laws'?  Has  it  said  that 
the  civil  power  shall  not  be  employed?  The  civil  officer  is  to  exe¬ 
cute  the  laws  on  all  occasions  ;  and  if  he  be  resisted,  this  auxiliary 
power  is  given  to  congress,  of  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute 
them,  when  it  shall  be  found  absolutely  necessary. 

From  his  argument  on  this  occasion,  and  his  eulogium  on  the  exe¬ 
cutive  magistrate  of  Britain,  it  might  be  inferred,  that  the  executive 
magistrate  here,  was  to  have  the  power  of  calling  forth  the  militia. 
What  is  the  idea  of  those  gentlemen  who  heard  his  argument  on  this 
occasion?  Is  it  not  that  the  president  is  to  have  this  power — that 
president  who  he  tells  us,  is  not  to  have  those  high  feelings,  and 
that  fine  sensibility,  which  the  British  monarch  possesses?  No,  Sir, 
the  president  is  not  to  have  this  power.  God  forbid  we  should  ever 
see  a  public  man  in  this  country  who  should  have  this  power.  Con¬ 
gress  only  are  to  have  the  power  of  calling  forth  the  militia.  And 
will  the  worthy  member  say,  that  he  would  trust  this  power  to  a 
prince,  governed  by  the  dictates  of  ambition,  or  mere  motives  of 
personal  interest  sooner  than  he  would  trust  it  in  the  hands  of  con¬ 
gress?  1  will  trust  congress,  because  they  will  be  actuated  by  mo¬ 
tives  of  fellow  feeling.  They  can  make  no  regulations  but  what 
will  affect  themselves,  their  friends,  and  relations.  But  I  would 
not  trust,  a  prince  whose  ambition  and  private  views  would  be  the 
guide  of  his  actions.  When  the  government  is  carried  on  by  repre¬ 
sentatives,  and  persons  of  my  own  choice,  whom  I  can  follow  when 
far  removed,  who  can  be  displaced  at  stated  and  short  periods,  I, 
can  safely  confide  the  power  to  them.  It  appears  to  me  that  this 
power  is  essentially  necessary.  For,  as  the  general  defence  is  trust¬ 
ed  to  congress,  we  ought  to  entrust  fully  the  means.  This  cannot 
be  fully  done  without  giving  the  power  of  calling  forth  the  militia ; 
and  this  power  is  sufficiently  guarded. 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentlemen  has 
laid  much  stress  on  the  maxim,  that  the  purse  and  sword  ought  not 


Madison,]  VIRGINIA,  36f 

to  be  put  in  the  same  hands,  with  a  view  of  pointing  out  the  impro¬ 
priety  of  vesting  this  power  in  the  general  government.  Bnt  it  is 
totally  inapplicable  to  this  question.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this 
rnaxim?  Does  it  mean  that  the  sword  and  purse  ought  not  to  be 
trusted  in  the  hands  of  the  same  government1?  This  cannot  be  the 
meaning.  For  there  never  was,  and  I  can  say  there  never  will  be  an 
efficient  government,  in  which  both  are  not  vested.  The  only  ra¬ 
tional  meaning,  is,  that  the  sword  and  purse  are  not  to  be  given  to 
the  same  member.  Apply  it  to  the  British  government,  which  has 
been  mentioned.  The  sword  is  in  the  hands  of  the  British  kino-, 

O 

The  purse  in  the  hands  of  the  parliament.  It  is  so  in  America,  as 
lar  as  any  analogy  can  exist.  Would  the  honorable  member  say, 
that  the  sword  ought  to  be  put  in  the  hands  of  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  or  in  other  hands  independent  of  the  government  alto¬ 
gether?  If  he  says  so,  it  will  violate  the  meaning  of  that  maxim. 
This  would  be  a  noveltj"  hitherto  unprecedented.  The  purse  is  in 
the  hands  of  the  representatives  of  the  people.  They  have  the  ap¬ 
propriation  of  all  monies.  They  have  the  direction  and  regulation 
of  land  and  naval  forces.  They  are  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia — and  the  president  is  to  have  the  command  ;  and,  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  senate,  to  appoint  the  officers.  The  means  ought 
to  be  commensurate  to  the  end.  The  end  is  general  protection. 
This  cannot  be  effected  without  a  general  power  to  use  the  strength 
of  the  union. 

We  are  told  that  both  sides  are  distinguished  by  these  great  traits, 
confidence  and  distrust.  Perhaps  there  may  be  a  less  or  greater 
tincture  of  suspicion  on  one  side,  than  the  other.  But  give  me  leave 
to  say,  that  where  power  can  be  safrly  lodged,  if  it  be  necessary, 
reason  commands  its  cession.  In  such  case  it  is  imprudent  and  un¬ 
safe  to  withhold  it.  It  is  universally  admitted  that  it  must  be  lodg¬ 
ed  in  some  hands  or  other.  The  question  then  is,  in  what  part  of 
the  government  it  ought  to  be  placed ;  and  not  whether  any  other 
political  bedy  independent  of  the  government  should  have  it  or  not. 
I  profess  myself  to  have  had  an  uniform  zeal  for  a  republican  go¬ 
vernment.  If  the  honorable  member,  or  any  other  person,  conceives 
that  my  attachment  to  this  system  arises  from  a  different  source,  he 
is  greatly  mistaken.  From  the  first  moment  that  my  mind  was  cap¬ 
able  of  contemplating  political  subjects,  I  never,  till  this  moment, 
ceased  wishing  success  to  a  well  regulated  republican  government, 
The  establishment  of  such  in  America  was  my  most  ardent  desire. 

I  have  considered  attentively  (and  my  consideration  has  been  aided 
by  experience)  the  tendency  of  a  relaxation  of  laws,  and  a  licen¬ 
tiousness  of  manners. 

If  we  review  the  history  of  all  republics,  we  are  justified  by  ffie- 


368 


DEBATES. 


[Hen  ax. 


supposition,  that  if  the  bands  of  the  government  be  relaxed,  confu^ 
sion  will  ensue.  Anarchy  ever  has,  and  I  fear  ever  will,  produce 
despotism.  What  was  the  state  of  things  that  preceded  the  'wars, 
and  revolutions  in  Germany!  Faction  and  confusion.  What  pro¬ 
duced  the  disorders  and  commotions  of  Holland!  The  like  causes. 
In  this  commonwealth,  and  every  state  in  the  union,  the  relaxed  op¬ 
eration  of  the  government  has  been  sufficient  to  alarm  the  friends  Oa 
their  country.  The  rapid  increase  of  population  in  every  state  is 
an  additional  reason  to  check  dissipation  and  licentiousness.  Does 
it  not  strongly  call  for  the  friends  of  republican  government  to  en¬ 
deavor  to  establish  a  republican  organization!  A  change  is  abso^ 
lately  necessary.  I  can  see  no  danger  in  submitting  to  practice 
an  experiment  which  seems  to  be  founded  on  the  best  theoretic  prin¬ 
ciples. 

But  the  honorable  member  tells  us,  there  is  not  an  equal  respon¬ 
sibility  delineated  on  that  paper,  to  that  which  is  in  the  English  go¬ 
vernment.  Calculations  have  been  made  here,  that  when  you 
strike  off  those  entirely  elected  by  the  influence  of  the  crown,  the 
other  part  does  not  bear  a  greater  proportion  to  the  number  of  their 
people,  than  the  number  fixed  in  that  paper,  bears  to  the  number  of 
inhabitants  in  the  United  States.  If  it  were  otherwise,  there  is  still 
more  responsibility  in  this  government.  Our  representatives  are 
chosen  for  two  years.  In  Great  Britain  they  are  chosen  for  seven 
3Tears.  Any  cffizen  may  be  elected  here.  In  Great  Britain  no  one 
can  be  elected  to  represent  a  county,  without  having  an  estate  of  the 
value  of  366OO,  sterling  a  year,  nor  to  represent  a  corporation  with¬ 
out  an  annual  estate  of  £300;  Yet  we  are  told,  there  is  no  sympa¬ 
thy  or  fellow-felling  between  the  people  here,  and  their  representa¬ 
tives  ;  but  that  in  England  they  have  both; — A  just  comparison  will 
shew,  that  if  confidence  be  due  to  the  government  there,  it  is  due 
ten  fold  here. 

[Mr  Madison  made  many  other  observations,  but  spoke  so  very  that 
he  could  not  be  distinctly  heard'.] 

Mr  HENRY — Mr  Chairman,  it  is  now  confessed  that  this  is  a 
national  government;  There  is  not  a  single  federal  feature  in  it;  It 
has]  been  alleged  within  these  walls,  during  the  debates,  to  be  nar 
tional  and  federal,  as  it  suited  the  arguments  of  gentlemen. 

But  now  when  we  have  heard  the  definition  of  it,  it  is  purely  na¬ 
tional.  The  honorable  member  was  pleased  to  say,  that  the  sword 
and  purse  included  every  thing  of  consequence.  And  shall  we 
trust  them  out  of  our  hands  without  checks  and  barriers  !  The 
sword  and  purse  are  essentially  necessary  for  the  government. 
Every  essential  requisite  must  be  in  congress.  Where  are  the  purse 


Henky.] 


VIRGINIA. 


369 


aud  sword  of  Virginia  ?  They  must  go  to  congress.  What  is  be¬ 
come  of  your  country  ?  The  Virginian  government  is  but  a  name. 

It  clearly  results  from  his  last  argument  that  we  are  to  be  consoli¬ 
dated.  We  should  be  thought  unwise  indeed  to  keep,  200  legisla¬ 
tors  in  Virginia,  when  the  government  is  in  fact  gone  to  Philadelphia 
or  New-Y ork.  We  are  as  a  state  to  farm  no  part  of  the  government. 
Where  are  your  checks  ?  The  most  essential  objects  of  government 
are  to  be  administered  by  congress.  How  then  can  th.e  state  govern¬ 
ments  be  any  check  ppon  them  I  If  we  are  to  be  a  republican 
government  it  will  be  consolidated,  not  confederated. 

The  means,  says  the  gentleman,  rpust  be  commensurate  to  the 
end.  How  does  this  apply?  All  things  in  common,  are  left  with 
this  government.  There  being  an  infinitude  in  the  government, 
there  must  be  an  infinitude  of  means  to  carry  it  on.  This  is  a  sort 
of  mathematical  government  that  may  appear  well  on  paper,  but 
cannot  sustain  examination,  or  be  safely  reduced  to  practice.  The 
delegation  of  power  to  an  adequate  number  of  representatives,  and 
an  unimpeded  reversion  of  it  back  to  the  people,  at  short  periods, 
form  the  principal  trails  of  a  republican  government.  The  idea  of 
a  republican  government  in  that  paper,  is  something  superior  to  the 
poor  people.  governing  persons  are  the  servants  of  the  peo¬ 

ple.  There  the  servants  are  greater  than  their  masters;  because  it 
includes  infinitude,  and  infinitude  excludes  every  idea  of  subordina¬ 
tion.  In  this  the  creature  has  destroyed,  and  soared  above  the 
creator.  For  if  its  powers  be  infinite,  what  rights  have  the  people 
remaining?  By  that  very  argument  despotism  has  made  way  in  all 
countries,  where  the  people  unfortunately  have  been  enslaved  by  it. 
Wre  are  told  the  sword,  and  purse  are  necessary  for  the  national  de¬ 
fence.  The  junction  of  these  without  limitation  in  the  same  hands, 
is,  by  logical  and  mathematical^  conclusions,  the  description  of  des¬ 
potism. 

The  reasons  adduced,  here  to-day,  have  long  ago,  been  advanced 
in  favor  of  passsive  obedience  apd  non-jesistanep.  In  1688,  the 
British  nation  expelled  their  monarch  for  attempting  to  trample  on, 
their  liberties.  The  doctrine  of  divine  right  and  passive  obedience, 
was  said  to  be  pomra.anded  by  beaven,  was  inculcated  by  his 
minions  and  adherents.  He  wanted  to  possess,  without  control,  the 
sword  and  purse.  The  attempt  cost  him  his  crown.  This  govern¬ 
ment  demands  the  same  powers..  I  see  reason  to  be  more  and  more 
alarmed.  1  fear  it  will  terminate  in  despotism,.  As  to  hi,s  objection  , 
of  the  abuse  of  liberty,  it  is  denied.  The  political  enquiries  and 
promotions  of  the  peasants,  is  a  happy  circumstance.  A  foundation 
of  knowledge  is  a  great  mark  of  happiness.  When  the  spirit  of 
enquiry  after  political  discernment,  goes  forth  among  the  lowest  of 
von  3,.  24 


DEBATES 


370 


the  people,  it  rejoices  my  heart.  Why  such  fearful  apprehensions  ? 

I  defy  him  to  shew  that  liberty  has  been  abused.  There  has  been 
no  rebellion  here  ;  though  there  was  in  Massachusetts.  Tell  me  of 
any  country  which  has  been  so  long  without  a  rebellion.  Dis¬ 
tresses  have  been  patiently  borne  in  this  country,  which  wrould  have 
produced  revolutions  in  other  countries.  We  strained  every  nerve 
to  make  provisions  to  pay  off  our  soldiers  and  officers.  They,  though 
not  paid,  and  greatly  distressed  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  mag¬ 
nanimously  acquiesced.  The  depreciation  of  the  circulating  cur¬ 
rency  very  much  involved  many  of  them,  and  thousands  of  other 
citizens,  in  absolute  ruin ;  but  the  same  patient  fortitude  and  for¬ 
bearance  marked  their  conduct.  What  would  the  people  of  Eng¬ 
land  have  done  in  such  a  situation  ?  They  would  have  resisted  the 
government,  and  murdered  the  tyrant.  But  in  this  country  no  abuse 
of  power  has  taken  place.  It  is  only  a  general  assertion  unsup¬ 
ported,  which  suggests  the  contrary.  Individual  licentiousness  will 
shew  its  baneful  consequences  in  every  country,  let  its  government 
be  what  it  may. 

But  the  honorable  gentleman  says,  responsibility  will  exist  more 
in  this,  than  in  the  British  government.  It  exists  here  more  in  name 
than  any  thing  else.  I  need  not  speak  of  the  executive  authority. 
But  consider  the  two  houses — the  American  parliament.  Are  the 
members  of  the  senate  responsible  ?  They  may  try  themselves,  and 
if  found  guilty  on  impeachment,  are  to  be  only  removed  from  office. 
In  England  the  greatest  characters  are  brought  to  the  block  for  their 
sinister  administration.  They  have  a  power  there,  not  to  dismiss 
them  from  office,  but  from  life,  formal-practices.  The  king  himself 
cannot  pardon  in  this  case.  How  does  it  stand  with  respect  to  your 
lower  house?  You  have  but  ten  ;  whatever  number  may  be  there, 
six  is  a  majority.  Will  your  country  afford  no  temptation,  no  money 
to  corrupt  them  ?  Cannot  six  fat  places  be  found  to  accommodate 
them?  They  may,  after  the  first  congress,  take  any  place.  There 
will  be  a  multiplicity  of  places.  Suppose  they  corruptly  obtain 
places.  Where  will  you  find  them  to  punish  them?  At  the  farthest 
parts  of  the  union.  In  the  ten  miles  square, ^oi  within  a  state  where 
there  is  a  strong  hold.  What  are  you  to  do  when  these  men  return 
from  Philadelphia?  Two  things  are  to  be  done.  To  detect  the 
offender  and  bring  him  to  punishment.  You  will  find  it  difficult  to 
do  either. 

In  England  the  proceedings  are  openly  transacted.  They  deliver 
their  opinions  freely  and  openly.  They  do  not  fear  all  Europe. 
Compare  it  to  this.  You  cannot  detect  the  guilty.  The  publication 
from  time  to  time  is  merely  optional  in  them.  They  may  prolong 
the  period,  or  suppress  it  altogether,  uader  pretence  cf  its  being 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


371 


necessary  to  be  kept  secret.  The  yeas  and  nays  will  avail  nothing. 
Is  the  publication  daily  I  It  may  be  a  year,  or  once  in  a  century. 
I  know  this  would  be  an  unfair  construction  in  the  common  concerns 
of  life.  But  it  would  satisfy  the  words  of  the  constitution.  It  would 
be  some  security  were  it  once  a  year,  or  even  once  in  two  years. 
When  the  new  election  comes  on,  unless  you  detect  them,  what  be¬ 
comes  of  your  responsibility  I  Will  they  discover  their  guilt  when 
they  wish  to  be  re-elected!  This  would  suppose  them  to  be  not 
only  bad,  but  foolish  men,  in  pursuit  of  responsibility.  Have  you 
a  right  to  scrutinize  into  the  conduct  of  your  representatives  !  Can 
any  man  who  conceives  himself  injured,  go  and  demand  a  sight  of 
their  journals !  But  it  will  be  told  that  I  am  suspicious.  I  am  an¬ 
swered  to  every  question,  that  they  will  be  good  men.  In  England 
they  see  daily  what  is  doing  in  parliament.  They  will  hear  from 
their  parliament  in  one  thirty-ninth  part  of  the  time,  that  we  will 
hear  from  congress  in  this  scattered  country.  Let  it  be  proposed 
rn  England  to  lay  a  poll  tax,  or  enter  into  any  measure  that  will 
injure  one  part,  and  produce  emoluments  to  another,  intelligence 
will  fly  quickly,  as  the  rays  of  light,  to  the  people.  They  will  in¬ 
struct  their  representatives  to  oppose  it,  and  will  petition  against  it, 
and  get  it  prevented,  or  redressed  instantly.  Impeachment  follows 
quickly  a  violation  of  duty.  Will  it  be  so  here  !  You  must  detect 
the  offence,  and  punish  the  defaulter.  How  will  this  be  done  when 
you  know  not  the  offender,  even  though  he  had  a  previous  design  to 
commit  the  misdemeanor!  Your  parliament  will  consist  of  sixty- 
five.  Your  share  will  be  ten  out  of  the  sixty- five.  Will  they  not 
take  shelter,  by  saying  they  were  in  the  minority — that  the  men 
from  New  Hampshire  and  Kentucky  outvoted  them!  Thus  will 
responsibility,  that  great  pillar  of  a  free  government,  be  taken  away. 

The  honorable  gentleman  wished  to  try  the  experiment.  Loving 
his  country  as  he  does,  he  would  not  surely  wish  to  trust  his  happi¬ 
ness  to  an  experiment,  from  which  much  harm,  but  no  good  may 
result. 

I  will  speak  another  time,  and  will  not  fatigue  the  committee 
now.  I  think  the  friends  of  the  opposition  ought  to  make  a  pause 
here ;  for  I  can  see  no  safety  to  my  country,  if  you  give  up  this 
power. 

Mr.  MADISON, — Mr,  Chairman,  the  honorable  member  expres. 
ses  surprise,  that  I  wished  to  see  an  experiment  made  of  a  republi¬ 
can  government;  or,  that  I  would  risk  the  happiness  of  my  countiy 
on  an  experiment.  WThat  is  the  situation  of  this  country  at  this  mo¬ 
ment!  Is  it  not  rapidly  approaching  to  anarchy!  Are  not  the 
bands  of  the  union  so  absolutely  relaxed  as  almost  to  amount  to  a 
dissolution!  What  has  produced,  despotism  and  tyranny  in  other 


372  DEBATES;.  [Madisos 

parts  of  the  world?  Is  it  not  agreed  upon  all  hands*  that  a  reform 
is  necessary?  If  any  takes  place*  will  it?  not  be  an  experiment  as 
well  as  this  system?  He  acknowledges.the  existing  system  to  be 
defective.  He  admits  the  necessity;  oiteome  change.  Would  not 
the  change  he  would  choose  himself,' be1  also  an  experiment?  He 
has  repeated  objections*  which  >  have  already  been  clearly  refuted, 
and  which  therefore  will  pass  over. 

With  respect  to  responsibility,  still  the  honorable  member  thinks 
that  the  house  of  representatives  and  senate  will  suffer  by  s,  a  com¬ 
parison  with  the  British  parliament.  I  will  not  repeat  the  contrast 
made  before,  which  he  has  mentioned. .  He  tells  us  what  may  be 
done  by  our  representatives  with  respect  to  the  admission  to  offices, 
and  insinuates  that  less  may  be  done  in  Great  Britain  by  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  parliament.  In  this  country,  by  this  system,  no  new  office 
can  be  taken  by  a  member  of  the  government,  and  if  he  takes  an  old 
one,  he  loses  his  seat.  If  the  emoluments  of  any  existing  office  be 
increased,  he  cannot  take  it.  How  is  it  in  Great  Britain?  Any  mem¬ 
ber  may  have  any  place.  For  parliament  may  create  any  new  of¬ 
fices  they  please,  or  increase  the  emoluments  of  existing  offices,  and 
yet  the  members  may  accept  any  such  places..  Any  member  may 
accept  any  office  whatever,  and  go  again  into  parliament.  Does  this 
comparison  militate  against  this  system/1  He  tells  us  the  affairs  of 
our  country  are  not  alarming.,  I  wish  this  assertion  was  well  foun¬ 
ded.  I  concur  with  him  in  rejoicing  to  see  the  people  enlightened 
and  vigilant.  I  should  be  happy  to  see  the  people  paying  respect 
to  the  laws  and  magistracy.  But  is  respect  paid  to  our  laws?  Ev¬ 
ery  man’s  experience  will  tell  him  more  perhaps  than  any  thing  I 
could  say.  Public  and  private  confidence  daily  and  rapidly  decrease 
Experiments  must  be  made,  and  in  that  form  in  which  we  must  find 
most  to  the  interest  of  our  country. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr.  Chairman,  our  attention  is  summoned 
to  this  clause  respecting  the  militia,  and  alarms  are  thrown,  out  to 
persuade  us,  that  it  involves  a  multiplicity  of  danger.  It  is  suppo¬ 
sed  by  the  honorable  gentleman  lately  up,  and  another  gentleman, 
that  the  elause  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  suppress  insurrections,, 
repel  evasions,  and  execute  the  laws  of  the  union,  implies,  that  in¬ 
stead  of  using  civil'  force  in  the  first  instance,  the  militia  are  to  be 
called  forth  to  arrest  petty  offenders  against  the  laws.  Ought  not 
common  sense  to  be  the  rule  of  interpreting  this  constitution?  Is 
there  an  exclusion  of  the  civil  power?  Does  it  provide  that  the  laws 
are  to  be  inforced  by  military  coercion  in  all  cases?  No,  sir.  All 
that  we  are  to-infer,  is,  that  when  the  civil  power  is  not  sufficient,  the 
militia  must  be  drawn  out.  Who  are  they?  He  says  (and  I  cheerfully 
acquiesce  in  the  rectitude  of  the  assertion)  that  they  are  the  bulwarks 


"Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


373 


of  our  liberties.  Shall  we  be  afraid  that  the  people-,  this  bulwark  of 
freedom,  shall  turn  instruments  of  slavery!  The  officers  are  to  be 
appointed  by  the  states.  Will  you  admit  that  they  will  act  so  crim¬ 
inally  as  to  turn  against  their  country?  The  officers  of  the  general 
government  are  attached  to  it,  because  they  derive  their  appointment 
from  it.  Admitting  the  militia  officers  to  be  corrupt,  what  is  to  make 
them  be  in  favor  of  the  general  government?  Will  not  the  same  rea- 
son  attach  them  to  the  state  governments?  Rut  it  is  feared  that  the 
militia  are  to  be  subjected  to  martial  law  when  not  in  service.  They 
are  only  to  be  called  out  in  three  cases  ,  and  only  to  be  governed  by 
the  authority  of  congress  when  in  the  actual  service  of  the  United 
States  ;  so  that  their  articles  of  war  can  no  longer  operate  upon  them, 
than  when  in  the  actual  service  of  the  union. 

Can  it  be  presumed  that  you  can  vest  the  supreme  power  of  the 
United  States  with1  the  power  of  defence,  and  yet  take  away  this  nat¬ 
ural  defence  from  them?  You  risk  the  general  defence  by  withold¬ 
ing  this  power. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  speaking  of  responsibility  'has  mista¬ 
ken  facts.  He  says  the  king  cannot  pardon  offenders  found  guilty 
on  impeachment.  The  king  can  pardon  after  impeachment,  though 
not  before.  He  says  further,  that  in  America  every  thing  is  con¬ 
cealed,  whereas  in  England  the  operations  hf  the  government  axe 
openly  transacted.  In  England  those  subjects  which  produce  im¬ 
peachments  are  not  opinions.  No  man  never  thought  of  impeaching 
a  man  for  an  opinion.  It  would  be  impossible  to  discover  whether 
the  error  in  opinion  resulted  from  a  willful  mistake  of  the  heart,  or 
an  involuntary  fault  of  the  head.  What  are  the  occasions  of  im¬ 
peachments  most  commonly?  Treaties.  Are  these  previously 
known?  No.  Till  after  they  are  presented  to  the  public  eye,  they 
not  known.  Those  who  advised  a  treaty  are  nett  known  till  then. 
There  ought  not  to  be  a  publication  on  the  subject  of  negotiations 
till  they  are  concluded.  So  that  when  he  thinks  there  is  a  greater 
notoriety  in  this  case  in  England  than  here,  I  say  he  is  mistaken. 
There  will  be  as  much  notoriety  in  America  as  in  England,  The  spir¬ 
it  of  the  nation  occasions  the  notoriety  of  their  political  operations, 
and  not  any  constitutional  requisition.  The  spirit  of  liberty  will  no^ 
be  less  predominant  m  America,  I  hope,  than  there.  With  respect 
to  a  standing  army,  I  believe  the.Te  was  not  a  member  in  the  federal 
convention,  who  did  not  feel  indignation  at  such  an  institution. 
What  remedy  then  could  be  provided? — Leave  the  country  defence¬ 
less?  In  order  to  provide  for  our  defence,  and  exclude  the  dangers 
of  a  standing  army,  the  general  defence  is  left  to  those  who  are  the 
objects  of  defence.  It  is  left  to  the  militia  who  will  suffer  if  they 
become  the  instruments  of  tyranny.  The  general  government  must 


$74 


debates. 


[Mason'. 


nave  power  to  call  them  forth  when  the  general  defence  requires  it. 
In  order  to  produce  greater  security,  the  state  governments  are  to 
appoint  the  officers.  The  president  who  commands  them  when  in 
actual  service  of  the  union,  is  appointed  secondarily  by  the  people. 
This  is  a  further  security.  Is  it  not  incredible,  that  men  who  are  in- 
terested  in  the  happiness  of  their  country,  whose  friends,  relations, 
and  connections,  must  be  involved  in  the  fate  of  their  country,  should 
turn  against  their  countty?  I  appeal  to  every  man,  whether,  if  any 
of  our  own  officers  were  called  upon  to  destroy  the  liberty  of  their 
country,  he  believes  they  would  assent  to  such  an  act  of  suicide! 
The  state  governments  having  the  power  of  appointing  them,  may 
elect  men  who  are  the  most  remarkable  for  their  virtue  of  attachment 
to  their  country. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON,  after  having  read  the  clause  which 
gives  congress  power  to  provide  for  arming,  organizing,  and  discip¬ 
lining  the  militia  and  governing  those  in  actual  service  of  the  union 
— declared  it  as  his  firm  belief,  that  it  included  the  power  of  annex¬ 
ing  punishments,  and  establishing  necessary  discipline,  more  espe¬ 
cially  as  the  construction  of  this,  and  every  other  part  of  the  consti¬ 
tution,  was  left  to  those  who  were  to  govern.  If  so,  he  asked,  if 
congress  could  not  inflict  the  most  ignominious  punishments  on  the 
most  worthy  citizens  of  the  community?  "Would  freemen  submit 
to  such  indignant  treatment?  It  might  be  thought  a  strained  con¬ 
struction,  but  it  was  no  more  than  congress  might  put  upon  it  He 
thought  such  severities  might  be  exercised  on  the  militia,  as  would 
make  them  wish  the  use  of  the  militia  to  be  utterly  abolished,  and 
assent  to  the  establishment  of  a  standing  army.  He  then  adverted 
to  the  representation,  and  said  it  was  not  sufficiently  full  to  take  into 
consideration  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  all  the  citizens.  He 
admitted  that  the  nature  of  the  country  rendered  a  full  representa¬ 
tion  impracticable.  But  he  strongly  urged  that  impracticability  as  a 
conclusive  reason  for  granting  no  powers  to  the  government,  but 
such  as  were  absolutely  indispensable,  and  these  to  be  most  cau¬ 
tiously  guarded. 

He  then  recurred  to  the  power  of  impeachment.  On  this  subject 
he  entertained  great  suspicions.1  He  apoligized  for  being  suspici¬ 
ous.  He  entered  into  the  world  with  as  few  suspicions  as  any  man. 
Young  men,  he  said,  were  apt  to  think  well  of  every  one, till  time  and 
experience  taught  them  better.  After  a  treaty  manifestly  repugnant 
to  the  interests  of  the  country  was  made,  he  asked,  how  they  were 
to  be  punished?  Suppose  it  had  been  made  by  the  means  of  bribery 
and  corruption.  Suppose  they  had  received  100,000  guineas,  o? 

louis  d’ors,  from  a  foreign  nation,  for  consenting  to  a  treaty,  how 
was  the  truth  to  be  come  at?  Corruption  and  bribery  of  that  kind 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


375 


had  happened  in  other  governments,  and  might  in  this.  The  house 
of  representatives  were  to  impeach  them.  The  senators  were  to  try 
themselves.1  If  a  majority  of  them  were  guilty  of  the  crime,  would 
they  pronounce  themselves  guilty!  Yet,  says  he,  this  is  called  re¬ 
sponsibility.  He  wished  to  know  in  what  court  the  members  of 
the  government  were  to  be  tried  for  the  commission  of  indictable  of¬ 
fences,  or  injuries  to  individuals?  He  acknowledged  himself  to  be 
no  lawyer;  but  he  thought  he  could  see,  that  they  could  neither  be 
tried  in  the  state  nor  federal  courts.  The  only  means  therefore  of 
bringing  them  to  punishment  must  be  by  a  court  appointed  by  law : 
and  the  law  to  punish  them  must  also  be  made  by  themselves  By 
whom  is  it  to  be  made,  demanded  he?  By  the  very  men  who  are  in¬ 
terested  in  not  inflicting  punishment.  Yet,  says  he,  though  they 
make  the  law,  and  fix  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  on  themselves, 
it  is  called  responsibility.  If  the  senators  do  not  agree  to  the  law, 
it  will  not  be  made,  and  thus  they  will  escape  altogether. 

[Mr  Mason  then  animadverted  on  the  ultimate  control  of  congress 
over  the  elections  ;  and  was  proceeding  to  prove  that  it  was  danger¬ 
ous  :  when  he  was  called  to  order  by  Mr  Nicholas,  for  departing 
from  the  clause  under  consideration.  A  desultory  conversation  en¬ 
sued  and  Mr  Mason  was  permitted  to  proceed.  He  was  of  opinion, 
that  the  control  over  elections  tended  to  destroy  responsibility.  He 
declared  he  had  endeavored  to  discover  whether  this  power  was  real¬ 
ly  necessary,  or  what  was  the  necessity  of  vesting  it  in  the  govern¬ 
ment,  but  he  could  find  no  good  reason  for  giving  it.  That  the 
reasons  suggested  were,  that  in  case  the  states  should  refuse  or  ne¬ 
glect  to  make  regulations,  or  in  case  they  should  be  prevented  from 
making  regulations  by  rebellion  or  invasion,  then  the  general  go¬ 
vernment  should  interpose.] 

Mr  Mason  then  proceeded  thus — If  there  be  any  other  cases  I 
would  be  glad  to  know  them;  for  I  know  them  not.  If  there  be  no 
other,  why  not  confine  them  to  these  cases?  But  the  power  here 
as  in  a  thousand  other  instances,  is  without  reason.  I  have  no  pow¬ 
er,  which  any  other  person  can  take  from  me.  I  have  no  right  of 
representation,  if  they  can  take  it  from  me.  1  say,  therefore,  that 
congress  may,  by  this  claim,  take  away  the  right  of  representation 
or  render  it  nugatory,  despicable  or  oppressive.  It  is  at  least  argu¬ 
mentative,  that  what  may  be  done  wrill  be  done,  and  that  a  favorite 
point  will  be  done  by  those  who  can. 

Suppose  the  state  of  Virginia  should  adopt  such  regulations  as 
gentlemen  say  (and  in  which  I  accord  with  all  my  heart)  and  divide 
the  state  into  ten  districts.  Suppose  then  that  congress  should  order 
instead  of  this,  that  the  elections  should  be  held  in  the  borough  of 
Norfolk. — Will  any  man  say,  that  an)  man  in  Frederick  or  Berkely 
county,  would  have  any  share  in  this  representation,  if  the  members 
where  chosen  in  Norfolk?  Nay,  I  might  go  further  and  say,  that 


DEBATES. 


37$ 


[Mason. 


the  elections  foT  all  the  states  might  be  had  in  New  York,  and  theh 
we  should  have  to  go  So  far  that  the  privilege  would  be  lost  alto¬ 
gether ;  for  but  few  gentlemen  could  afford  to  go  thither.  Some  of 
the  best  friends  of  the  constitution  have  advocated  that  the  elections 
should  be  in  one  place.  This  power  is  not  necessary,  and  is  capa¬ 
ble  of  great  abuse.  It  ought  tc  be  confined  to  the  particular  cases 
in  which  they  assert  it  to  be  necessary.  Whatever  gentleman  may 
think  of  the  opposition,  I  will  never  agree  to  give  any  power  which 
I  conceive  to  be  dangerous. 

I  have  doubts  on  another  point.  The  fifth  section,  of  the  first  ar¬ 
ticle,  provides,  “that  each  house  shall  keep  a  journal  of  its  pro¬ 
ceedings,  and  from  time  t6  time  publish  the  same,  excepting  such 
parts  as  may  in  their  judgment,  require  secrecy.”  This  enables 
them  to  keep  the  negociations  about  treaties  secret.  Under  this 
veil  they  may  conceal  any  thing  and  every  thing.  Why  not  insert 
words  that  would  exclude  ambiguity  and  danger!  The  words  of 
the  confederation,  that  defective  system,  are  in  this  Tespect,  more 
eligible.  What  are  they!  In  the  last  clause  of  the  ninth  article  it 
provides,  “  that  congress  shall  publish  the  journal  of  their  proceed¬ 
ings  monthly,  except  such  parts  thereof  relating  to  treaties,  alliances 
cm*  military  operations,  as  i'h  their  judgement  require  secrecy.”  The 
proceedings,  by  that  system,  are  to  be  published  monthly,  except 
certain  exceptions.  These  are  proper  guards.  It  is  not  so  here, 
On  the  contrary,  they  may  conceal  what  they  please. 

Instead  of  giving  information,  they  will  produce  suspicion.  You 
can  not  discover  the  advocates  of  their  iniquitous  acts.  This  is  an 
additional  defect  of  responsibility.  Neither  house  can  adjourn  with¬ 
out  the  consent  of  the  other  for  moYe  than  three  days.  This  is  no 
parliamentary  rule.  It  is  untrodden  ground,  and  it  appears  to  me 
liable  to  much  exception. 

The  senators  are  chosen  for  six  years.  They  are  not  recallable 
for  those  six  years ;  and  are  re-eligible  at  the  end  of  the  six  yearsi 
It  stands  on  a  very  different  ground  from  the  confederation.  By 
that  sy  stehi  they 'Were  only  elected  for  one  year,  might  be  recalled  and 
were  incapable  of  re-election.  But  in  the  new  constitution,  instead 
of  being  elected  for  one,  they  are  chosen  for  six  years.  They  can¬ 
not  be  recalled  in  all  that  tiihe  for  any  misconduct,  and  at  the  end  of 
that  long  term  may  again  be  elected.  What  will  be  the  operation 
of  this  !  Is  it  not  probable,  that  those  gentlemen  who  will  be  elected 
senators  will  fix  themselees  in  the  federal  town,  and  become  citizens 
of  that  town  more  than  of  our  state!  They  will  purchase  a  good 
seat  in  or  near  the  town,  aud  become  inhabitants  of  that  place.  Will 
it  not  be  then  in  the  power  of  the  senate  to  worry  the  house  of  rep¬ 
resentatives  into  any  thing!  They  will  be  a  continually  existing 


VIRGINIA 


iLKE.j 


body.  They  ‘will  exercise  those  machinations  and  contrivances, 
which  the  many  have  always  to  fear  from  the  few.  The  house  of 
representatives  is  the  only  check  on  the  senate,  with  their  enormous 
powers.  But,  by  that  clause,  you  give  them  the  power  of  worrying 
the  house  of  representatives  into  a  compliance  with  any  measure. 
The  senators  living  on  the  spot  will  feel  no  inconvenience  from  long 
sessions,  as  they  Will  vote  themselves  handsome  pay,  without  in¬ 
curring  any  additional  expenses.  Your  representatives  are  on  a 
different  ground,  from  their  shorter'continuance  in  office.  The  gem 
tlemen  from  Georgia  are  six  or  seven  hundred  miles  from  home, 
aud  wish  to  go  home.  The  senate  taking  advantage  of  this,  by 
stopping  the  other  house  from  adjourning,  may  worry  them  into  any 
thing.  These  are  my  doubts,  and  I  think  the  provision  not  consis¬ 
tent  with  the  usual  parliamentary  modes. 

Mr.  LEE,  of  Westmoreland. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  anxious  to 
know  the  truth  on  this  great  occasion.  1  was  in  hopes  of  receiving 
true  information,  but  have  been  disappointed.  I  have  heard  suspi¬ 
cions  against  possibility,  and  not  against  probability.  As  to  the  dis¬ 
tinction  which  lies  between  the  gentlemen  for  and  against  the  con¬ 
stitution  :  In  the  first  place,  most  of  the  arguments  the  latter  use, 
pay  no  regard  to  the  necessity  of  the  union,  which  is  our  object. 
In  the  next  place  they  use  contradictory  arguments.  It  may  be  re¬ 
membered,  that  we  were  told  there  was  great  danger  of  an  aristoc* 
racy  governing  this  country  ;  for  that  their  wages  would  be  so  low, 
that  the  rich  alone  could  serve.  And  what  does  another  gentleman 
say?  That  the  price  will  be  so  high,  that  they  will  fix  themselves* 
comfortably  in  office,  and  by  their  power  and  extravagant  emolu¬ 
ments  ruin  us.  Ought  we  adduce  arguments  like  these,  which  inw 
ply  a  palpable  contradiction?  We  ought  to  use  arguments  capable 
of  discussion. 

I  beg  leave  to  make  some  reply  to  what  the  honorable  gentleman 
over  the  way  said.  He  rose  with  great  triumph  and  exultation, 
saying,  that  we  had  conceded,  that  the  government  was  national. 
The  honorable  gentleman  is  so  little  used  to  triumph  on  the  grounds 
of  reasoning,  that  he  suffers  himself  to  be  quite  captivated  by  the 
least  appearance  of  victory.  What  reason  had  he  to  say,  that  we 
admitted  it  to  be  a  national  government?  We  agree  that  the  sword 
and  the  purse  are  in  the  hands  of  the  general  government  for  dif¬ 
ferent  designated  purposes.  What  had  the  honorable  member  con* 
ceded  ?  That  the  objects  of  the  government  were  general,  as  de¬ 
signated  in  that  system,  equally  affecting  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  every  state.  This  was  the  sole  concession,  and  which  by  no 
means  warrants  his  conclusion.  Then  why  did  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  seize  it  as  a  victory  ?  Does  he  mean  to  object  to  the  consti* 


S78 


DEBATES. 


[Lee, 

tution  by  putting  words  into  our  mouths  which  we  never  uttered? 
Did  that  gentleman  say,  that  the  happiness  of  the  people  depended 
on  the  private  virtues  of  the  members  of  the  government,  and  not  on  its 
construction?  Did  any  gentleman  admit  this,  as  he  insinuated? 
No,  Sir,  we  never  admitted  such  a  conclusion.  Why  then  take  up 
the  time  of  this  house  in  declaiming  on  words  we  never  said  ?  We 
say,  that  it  will  secure  our  liberty  and  happiness,  and  that  it  is  so 
constructed  and  organized,  that  we  need  apprehend  no  danger. 

But,  says  he,  the  creature  destroys  the  creator.  How  has  he 
proved  it  ?  By  his  bare  assertion.  By  ascribing  infinitude  to 
powers  clearly  limited  and  defined,  for  certain  designated  purposes, 
I  shall  not  repeat  the  arguments  which  have  fully  refuted  this  idea 
of  the  honorable  gentleman. 

But  gentlemen  say,  that  we  must  apply  to  the  militia  to  execute 
the  constitutional  laws, without  the  interposition  of  the  civil  poweT,and 
that  a  military  officer  is  to  be  substituted  to  the  sheriff  in  all  cases. 
This  unwarrantable  objection  is  urged,  like  many  others,  to  produce 
the  rejection  of  this  government,  though  contrary  to  reason.  What 
is  the  meaning  of  the  clause  under  debate?  Does  not,  their  expla¬ 
nation  violate  the  natural  meaning  of  language  ?  Is  it  to  be  inferred, 
that  "when  the  laws  are  not  opposed,  judgements  must  be  executed 
by  the  militia?  Is  this  the  right  and  liberal  way  of  discussing  the 
general  national  objects  ?  I  am  astonished  that  gentlemen  should 
attempt  to  impose  so  absurd  a  construction  upon  us.. 

The  honorable  gentleman  last  up  says,  that  organizing  the  militia 
gives  congress  power  to  punish  them  when  not  in  the  actual  ser¬ 
vice  of  the  government.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken  in  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  word  organization,  to  explain  which  would  unnecessarily 
take  up  time.  Suffice  it  to  say,  it  does  not  include  the  infliction  of 
punishments.  The  militia  will  be  subject  to  the  common  regula¬ 
tions  of  war  when  in  actual  service.  But  not  in  time  of  peace. 

But  the  honorable  gentleman  said,  there  is  danger  of  an  abuse  of 
the  power,  and  attempted  to  exemplify.  And  delegated  power  may 
be  abused.  It  would  be  civil  and  candid  in  those  gentlemen  who 
inveigh  against  this  constitution  with  such  malignity,  to  shew  in 
what  manner  adequate  powers  can  be  given  without  a  possibility  of 
being  abused.  It  appears  to  me  to  be  as  well  secured  as  it  can  be, 
and  that  the  alterations  he  proposes  would  involve  many  disadvan¬ 
tages.  I  cannot  then  but  conclude  that  this  government  will,  in  my 
opinion,  secure  our  liberty  and  happiness,  without  any  alteration. 

Mr.  CLAY  made  several  remarks,  but  he  spoke  too  low.  He 
admitted  that  he  might  be  mistaken  with  respect  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  civil  power  in  executing  the  laws.  As  it  was  insinuated  that  he 
was  not  under  the  influence  of  common  sense  in  making  the  obje^. 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


379 

tion,  his  error  might  result  from  his  deficiency  in  that  respect.  But 
he  thought  that  another  gentleman  was  as  deficient  in  common  de¬ 
cency,  as  he  was  in  common  sense.  He  was  not,  however,  con¬ 
vinced  that  the  civil  power  would  be  employed.  If  it  was  meant 
that,  the  militia  should  not  be  called  out  to  execute  the  laws  in  all 
cases,  why  were  they  not  satisfied  with  the  words,  “repel  invasions, 

3 

suppress  insurrections!”  He  thought  the  word  insurrection  in¬ 
cluded  every  opposition  to  the  laws ;  and  if  so,  it  would  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  call  them  forth  to  suppress  insurrections,  without  mention¬ 
ing  that  they  were  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  union.  He  added, 
that  although  the  militia  officers  were  appointed  by  the  state  govern¬ 
ments,  yet  as  they  were  sworn  to  obey  the  superior  power  of  con¬ 
gress,  no  check  or  security  would  result  from  their  nomination  of 
them. 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  I  cannot  think  that  the  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  gentleman  last  up,  is  founded  in  reason.  It  does  not  say 
that  the  militia  shall  be  called  out  in  all  cases,  but  in  certain  cases. 
There  are  cases  in  which  the  execution  of  the  laws  may  require  the 
operation  of  militia,  which  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  invasion  01  in¬ 
surrection.  There  may  be  a  resistance  to  the  laws  which  cannot 
be  termed  an  insurrection. 

My  honorable  friend  over  the  way  has  opened  a  new  source  of  ar¬ 
gument.  He  has  introduced  the  assertions  of  gentlemen  out  of 
doors.  If  we  thus  depart  from  regularity,  we  will  never  be  able  to 
•come  to  a  decision. 

If  there  be  any  gentleman  who  is  a  friend  to  the  government,  and 
•says,  that  the  elections  may,  or  ought  to  be  held  in  one  place,  he  is 
an  enemy  to  it  on  that  ground.  With  respect  to  the  time,  place,  and 
manner  of  elections,  I  cannot  think,  notwithstanding  the  apprehen¬ 
sions  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  there  is  any  danger,  or  if 
abuse  should  take  place,  that  there  is  not  sufficient  security.  If  all 
the  people,  of  the  United  States  should  be  directed  to  go  to  elect  in 
one  place,  the  members  of  the  government  would  be  execrated  for 
the  infamous,  regulation.  Many  would  go  to  trample  them  under 
foot  for  their  conduct— and  they  would  be  succeeded  by  men  who 
would  remove  it.  They  would,  not  dare  to  meet  the  universal  ha¬ 
tred  and  detestation  of  the  people,  and  run  the  risk  of  the  certain 
dreadful  consequences.  We  must  keep  within  the  compass  of  hu¬ 
man  probability.  If  a  possibility  be  the  cause  of  objection,  we 
must  object  to  every  government  in  America.  But  the  honorable 
gentlemen  may  say,  that  better  guards  maybe  provided.  Let  us 
consider  the  objection.  The  power  of  regulating  the  time,  place,, 
and  manner  of  elections,  must  be  vested  some  where.  It  could  no* 
be  fixed  in  the  constitution  without  involving  great  inconveniences. 


DEBATES. 


;380 


[Madisok. 


They  could  then  have  no  authority  to  adjust  the  regulation  to  the 
changes  of  circumstances.  The  question  then  is,  whether  it  ought 
to  be  fixed  unalterably  in  the  state  governments,  or  subject  to  the 
control  of  the  general  government.  Is  it  not  Obvious,  that  the  gen* 
eral  government  would  be  destroyed  without  this  control?  It  has 
already  been  demonstrated  that  it  will  produce  many  conveniences. 
Have  we  not  sufficient  security  against  abuse?  Consider  fully  the 
principles  of  the  government.  The  sum  of  the  powers  given  up  by  the 
people  of  Virginia  is  divided  into  two  classes  :  One  to  the  federal 
and  the  other  to  the  state  government.  Each  is  subdivided  into 
three  branches.  These  may  be  kept  independent  of  each  other  in 
the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  In  this  system  they  are  as  distinct 
as  is  consistent  with  good  policy.  This,  in  my  opinion,  instead  of 
diminishing,  increases  the  security  of  liberty  more  than  any  govern¬ 
ment  that  ever  was.  For  the  powers  of  government  which  in  eve* 
ry  other  country  are  given  to  one  body,  are  here  given  to  two ;  and 
are  favorable  to  public  liberty.  With  respect  to  secrecy,  if  every 
thing  in  which  it  is  necessary,  <jould  be  enumerated,  I  would  have 
no  objection  to  mention  them.  All  the  state  legislatures  can  keep 
secret  what  they  think  ought  to  be  concealed.  The  British  house 
of  commons  can  do  it.  They  are  in  this  respect  under  much  les9 
restraint  than  congress.  There  never  was  any  legislative  assembly 
without  a  discretionary  power  of  concealing  important  transactions, 
the  publication  of  which  might  be  detrimental  to  the  community. 
There  can  be  no  real  danger  as  long  as  the  govnrnment  is  construc¬ 
ted  on  such  principles. 

He  objects  also  to  the  clause  respecting  adjournment  that  neither 
house  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than 
three  days.  It  was  before  remarked,  that  if  a  difference  should  take 
place  between  the  houses  about  the  time  of  adjournment,  the  presi¬ 
dent  could  still  determine  it:  from  which  no  danger  could  arise,  as 
he  is  chosen  in  a  secondary  degree  by  the  people,  and  would  conse¬ 
quently  fix  no  time  which  would  be  jepugnaitt  to  the  sense  of  the 
representatives  of  the  people.  Another,  and  more  satisfactoty  an¬ 
swer  is  this:  suppose  the  senate  wished  to  chain  down  the  house 
of  representatives,  what  is  to  hinder  them  from  going  home:  How 
bring  them  back  again?  It  would  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  con- 
stition  to  impede  the  operations  ©f  the  government, perhaps  at  a  criti¬ 
cal  period.  I  cannot  conceive  that  such  difference  will  often  hap¬ 
pen.  Were  the  senate  to  attempt  to  prevent  an  adjournment,  it 
would  but  serve  to  irritate  the  representatives,  without  having  the 
intended  effect,  as  the  president  could  adjourn  them.  There  will 
not  be  occasion  for  the  continual  residence  ofthe  senators  at  the  seat 
"°f  goverument.  What  business  have  they  more  than  the  house  of 


Hmry.J 


VIRGINIA. 


38 i< 


representatives?  The  appointment  of  officers  and  treaties.  With 

respect  to  the  appointment  of  officers,  a  law  may  be  made  to  grant 
it  to  the  president  alone.  It  must-be  supposed  there  will  be  but  few, 
and  subordinate  officers  to  be  appointed;. as  the  principal  offices  will 
be  filled.  It  is  observed,  that  the  president,  when  vacancies  ^happen 
during  the  recess  of  the  senate,. may  fill  them.till  it  meets..  With 
respect  to  treaties*,  the  occasions  of  forming  them  will  not  be  many, 
and  will  make  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  time  of  session. 

Mr  CLAY  wished5  to  know  the  instances  where  an  opposition  to 
the  laws  did  not  come  within  the  idea  of  an  insurrection.. 

Mr  MADISON  replied*  that  a  riot  did  not  come  within  the  legal 
lefinition  of  an  insurrection.  There  might  be  riots  to  oppose  the 
execution  of  the  laws,  which  the  civil  power  might  not  be  sufficient 
.0  quell.  This  was  one  case,  and  there  might  probably  be  other 
leases.  He  referred*  to  the  candor  of  the  committee,  whether  the  milr- 
tia  could:  ever  be  used  to>  destroy  Jhemselves.. 

Monday *  the  WtTi  of  June,.  1788., 

The  convention,  according  to  the  order  of  the  day,  again. resolved 
itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole  convention  to  take  into  further 
consideration  the  proposed  plan  of  government.,  Mr.  Wythe  in  the 
chair. 

[The  eighth  section  still  under  consideration*  See  page  258.] ; 

Mr  HENRY  thought  it  necessary  and  proper  that  they  should 
lake  a  collective  view  of  this  whole  section,  and  revert  again  to  the 
1  i rs t  clause.  He  adverted  to  the  clause  which-:  gives  congress  the 


uower  of  raising  armies,  and  proceeded  as  follows  :  To  me  this  ap. 
I»earsa  very  alarming  power,  when  unlimited.  They  are  not  only 
j  o  raise,  but  to  support  armies  ;  and  this  support  is  to  go  to  the  ut». 
nost  abilities  of  the  United  States..  If  congress  shall  say,  that  the 
general  welfare  requires  it,  they  may  keep  armies  continually  on 
oot.  There  is  no  control  on  congress  in  raising  or  stationing  them. 
They  may  billet  them  on  the  people  at  pleasure.  This  unlimited 
authority  is  a  most  dangerous  power :  its  principles  are  despotic..  If 
t  be  unbounded,  it  must  lead  to  despotism.  For  the  power  of  a. 
>eople  in  a  free  government,  is  supposed  to  be  paramount,  to  the 
jixisting  power. 

We  shall  be  told,  that  in  England,  the  king,  lords,  and  commons, 
jiave  this  power — that  armies  can  be  raised  by  the  prince  alone 
without  the  consent  of  the  people.  How  does  this  apply  here?  Is 
his  government  to  place  us  in  the  situation  of  the  English'?  Should 
we  suppose  this  government  to  resemble  king,  lords,  and  commons, 

I  ve  of  this  state  should  be  like  an  English  county.  An  English 
!  :ounty  cannot  control,  the  government,  Virginia  cannot  control  the 


M  Bates. 


[Henrx, 


government  of  congress  ho  more  than  the  county  of  Kent  can  con¬ 
trol  that  of  England.  Advert  to  the  power  thoroughly.  One  of  our 
first  complaints  under  the  former  government,  was  the  quartering  of 
troops  upon  us.  This  \vas  one  of  the  principal  reasons  for  dissolv¬ 
ing  the  connexion  With  Gaeat  Britain.  Here  we  may  have  troops 
in  time  of  pea6e.  They  may  be  billetted  in  arry  manner — to  tyran¬ 
nise,  oppress,  and  crush  us. 

We  are  told,  we  are  afraid  to  trust  ourselves.  That  our  own  rep¬ 
resentatives — congress,  will  not  exercise  their  powers  oppressively. 
That  we  will  not  enslave  ourselves — that  the  militia  cannot  enslave 
themselves,  &c.  Who  has  enslaved,  France,  Spain,  Germany,. 
Turkey,  and  other  countries,  which  groan  under  tyranny?  The}7 
Iiave  been  enslaved  by  the  hands  of  their  own  people.  If  it  will  be 
so  in  America,  it  will  be  only  as  it  has  been  every  where  else.  I 
am  still  persuaded  that  the  power  of  calling  forth  the  militia  to  exe¬ 
cute  the  laws  of  the  union,  &c.  is  dangerous.  We  requested  the 
gentleman  to  shew  the  cases  where  the  militia  would  be  wanting 
to  execute  the  laws.  Have  we  received  a  satisfactory  answer? 
When  we  consider  this  part,  and  compare  it  to  other  parts,  which 
declare  that  congress  may  declare  war,  and  that  the  president  shall 
command  the  regular  troops,  militia,  and  navy,  we  will  find  great 
danger.  Under  the  order  of  congress,  they  shall  suppress  insurrec¬ 
tions.  Under  the  order  of  congress,  they  shall  be  called  to  execute 
the  laws.  It  will  result  of  course,  that  this  is  to  be  a  government 
of  force.  Look  at  the  part  which  speaks  of  excises,  and  you  will' 
Tecollect,  that  those  who  are  to  collect  excises  and  duties,  are  to  be 
aided  by  military  force.  They  have  power  to  call  them  out,  and  to 
provide  for  arming,  organizing,  disciplining  them.  Consequently- 
they  are  to  make  militia  laws  for  this  state. 

The  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  the  militia  should  be  called' 
forth  to  quell  riots.  Have  we  not  seen  this  business  go  on  verv 
well  to-day  -without  military  force?  It  is  a  long  established  princi¬ 
ple- of  the  common  law  of  England,  that  civil  force  is  sufficient  to 
quell  riots.  To  what  length  may  it  not  be  carried?  A  law  may  be 
made,  that  if  twelve  men  assemble,  if  they  do  not  disperse,  they 
may  be  fired  upon. — I  think  it  so  in  England.  Does  not  this  part 
of  the  paper  bear  a  strong  aspect?  rriie  honorable  gentleman,  from, 
his  knowledge,  wTas  called  upon  to  shew  the  instances,  and  he  told 
us  the  militia  may  be  called  out  to  quell  riots.  They  may  make  the 
militia  travel,  and  act  under  a  colonel,  or  perhaps  under  a  constable.. 
Who  are  to  determine  whether  it  be  a  riot  or  not?  Those  who  are 
to  execute  the  la  ws  of  the  union?  If  they  have  powcir  to  execute 
their  laws  in  this  manner,  in  what  situation  are  we  vk.ced.?  Ypur 


VIRGINIA. 


383 


*nen  wh°  to  congress  are  not  restrained  by  a  bill  of  rights. 
They  are  not  restrained  from  inflicting  unusual  and  severe  punish¬ 
ments;  though  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia  forbids  it.  What  will 
be  the  consequence!  They  may  inflict  the  most  cruel  and  ignomin¬ 
ious  punishments  on  the  militia,  and  they  will  tell  you  that  it  is  ne¬ 
cessary  for  their  discipline. 

Give  me  leave  to  ask  another  thing.  Suppose  an  exciseman  will 
demand  leave  to  enter  your  cellar  or  house,  by  virtue  of  his  office  ; 
perhaps  he  may  call  on  the  militia  to  enable  him  to  go.  If  congress 
oe  informed  of  it,  will  they  give  you  redress'?  They  will  tell  you, 
that  he  is  executing  the  laws  under  the  authority  of  the  continent  at 
large,  which  must  be  obeyed,  for  that  the  government  cannot  be  car¬ 
ried  on  without  exercising  severity.  If,  without  any  reservation  of 
rights,  or  control,  you  are  contented  to  give  up  your  rights,  I  am 
not.  There  is  no  principle  to  guide  the  legislature  to  restrain  them 
trom  inflicting  the  utmost  severity  of  punishment.  Will  gentlemen 
voluntarily  give  up  their  liberty!  With  respect  to  calling  the  mi¬ 
litia  to  execute  every  execution  indiscriminately,  it  is  unprecedented- 
Have  we  ever  seen  it  done  in  any  free  country!  Was  it  ever  so  in 
the  mother  country?  It  never  was  so  in  any  well  regulated  country. 
It  is  a  government  of  force,  and  the  genius  of  despotism  expressly. 
It  is  not  proved  that  this  power  is  necessary,  and  if  it  be  unnecessary,, 
shall  we  give  it  up? 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  I  will  endeavor  to  follow  the  rule 
of  the  house;  but  must  pay  due  attention  to  the  observations  which 
fell  from  the  gentleman.  I  should  conclude,  from  abstracted  rea¬ 
soning,  that  they  were  ill  founded.  I  should  think,  that  if  there 
were  any  object,  which  the  general  government  ought  to  command,, 
it  would  be  the  direction  of  the  national  forces.  And  as  the  force 
which  lies  in  militia  is  most  safe,  the  direction  of  that  part  ought  to 
be  submitted  to,  in  order  to  render  another  force  unnecessary.  The 
power  objected  to  is  necessary,  because  it  is  to  be  employed  for  na¬ 
tional  purposes.  It  is  necessary  to  be  given  to  every  government. 
This  is  not  opinion,  but  fact.  The  highest  authority  may  be  given 
that  the  want  of  such  authority  in  the  government,  protracted  the 
late  war,  and  prolonged  its  calamities. 

He  says,  that  one  ground  of  complaint  at  the  beginning  of  the  rev¬ 
olution,  was,  that  a  standing  army  was  quartered  upon  us.  This 
was  not  the  whole  complaint.  We  complained  because  it  was  done 
without  the  local  authority  of  this  country — without  the  consent  of 
the  people  of  America.  As  to  the  exclusion  of  standing  armies  in 
the  bill  of  rights  of  the  states,  we  shall  find  that  though  in  one  or 
two  of  them,  there  is  something  like  a  prohibition,  yet  in  most  of 


384' 


DEBATES. 


them  it  is  onJy  provided,,  that  no  armies  shall  be  kept  without  the 
legislative  authority  ;  that  is,  without  the  consent  of  the  community 
itself.  Where  is  the  impropriety  of  saying  that  we  shall  have  an 
army,  if  necessary1?  Does  not  the  notoriety  of  this  constitute  secu¬ 
rity1?  If  inimical  nations  were  to  fall  upon  us  when  defenceless, 
what  would  be  the  consequence1?*  Would  it  be  wise  to  say,  that 
we  should  have  no  defence1?  Give  me  leave  to  say  that  the  only 
possible  way  to  provide  for,  standing  armies,  is  to  make  them  unne¬ 
cessary. 

The  way  to  do  this,  is  to  organize  and  discipline  our  militia,, 
so  as  to  render  them  capable  of  defending  the  country  against  ex¬ 
ternal  invasions,  and  internal  insurrections.  But  it  is  urged,  that 
abuses  may  happen.  How  is  it  possible  to  answer  objections  against, 
possibility  of  abuses?  It  must  strike  every  logical  reasoner,  that 
these  cannot  be  entirely  provided  against.  Ideally  thought  that  the 
objection  in  the  militia  was, at  an  end.  Whs  there  ever  a;  constitu¬ 
tion,  in  which,  if  authority  was  vested,  it  must  not  have  been  execu-. 
ted  by  force,  if  resisted?  Was  it  not  in  the  contemplation  of  this, 
state,  when  contemptuous  proceedings  were  expected,  to  recur  to 
something  of  this  kind?  How  is  impossible  to  have  a  more  proper 
resource  than  this?*  That  the  laws  or  every  country  ought  to  be  ex¬ 
ecuted,  cannot  be  denied.  That  force  must  used  be  if  necessary,  can¬ 
not  be  denied.  Can  any  government  be  established",  that  will  an¬ 
swer  any  purpose  whatever,  unless  force  be  provided  for,  executing 
its  laws?  The  constitution  does  not  say  that  a  standing  army  shall 
be  called  out  ta  execute  the  laws.  Is  not  this,  is  a  more  proper  way? 
The  militia  ought  to  be  called  forth  to  suppress  smugglers.  Will 
this  be  denied?  The  case  actually  happened  at  Alexandria.  There 
were  a  number  of  smugglers,  who  were  too  formidable  for  the  civil 
power  to  overcome.  The  military  quelled  the  sailers,  who,  other¬ 
wise  would  have  perpetrated  their  intentions.  Should  a  number  of 
smugglers  have  a  number  of  ships,  the  militia  ought  to  be  called 
torth  to  quell  them.  We  de  not  know  but  what  there  may  be  com¬ 
bination  of  smuggers  in  Virginia  hereafter.  We  all  know  the  use 
made  of  the  Isle  of  Man.  It  was  a  general  depository  of  contraband 
goods.  The  parliament  found  the  evil  so  great,  as  to  render  it  ne¬ 
cessary  to  wrest  it  out  the  hands  of  its  possessor. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says  that  it  is  a  government  of  force..  If 
he  means  military  force,  the  clause  under  consideration  proves  the 
contrary.  There  never  was  a  government  without  force.  What  is 
the  meaning  of  government?  An  institution  to  make  people  do  their 
duty.  A  government  leaving  it  to  a  man  to  do  his  duty,  or  not  as 
pleases,  would  be  a  new  species  of  government,  or  rather  no  govern¬ 
ment  aj  all.  The  ingenuity  of  the  gentleman  is  remarkable,  in  in- 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


385 


troducing  the  riot  act  of  Great  Britain.  That  act  has  no  connection, 
or  analogy,  to  any  regulation  of  the  militia  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing 
in  the  constitution  t6  warrant  the-  creneral  government  to  make  such 
an  act.  It  never  was  a  complaint  in  Great  Britain,  that  the  militia 
could  be  called  forth.  If  riots  should  happen,  the  militia  are  propeV 
to  quel!  it,  to  prevent  a  resort  to  another  mode.  As  to  the  infliction 
of  ignominious  punishments,  we  have  no  ground  of  alarm,  if  we 
consider  the  circumstances  of  the  people  at  large.  There  will  be  no 
punishments  so  ignominious  as  have  been  inflicted  already.  The 
militia  law  of  every  state  to  the  north  of  Maryland,  is  less  rigorous 
than  the  particular  law  of  this  state.  If  a  change  be  necessary  to 
be  made  by  the  general  government,  it  will  be  in  our  favor.  I  think 
that  the  people  of  those  states  would  not  agree  to  be  subjected  to  a 
more  harsh  punishment  than  their  own  militia  laws  inflict.  An  ob¬ 
servation  fell  from  a  gentleman  on  the  same  side  with  myself,  which 
deserves  to  be  attended  to.  If  we  be  dissatisfied  with  the  national 
government,  if  we  should  choose  to  renounce  it,  this  is  an  additional 
safe  guard  to  our  defence.  [  conceive  that  we  are  peculiarly  inter¬ 
ested  in  given  the  general  government  as  extensive  means  as  possi¬ 
ble  to  protect  us.  If  there  be  a  particular  discrimination  between 
places  in  America,  the  southern  states  are,  from  their  situation  and 
circumstances,  most  interested  in  giving  the  national  governmentthe' 
power  of  protecting  its  members.  f 

[Here  Mr  Madison  made  some  other  observations  ;  but  spoke  so 
very  low,  that  his  meaning  could  not  be  comprehended.] 

An  act  passed  a  few  years  ago  in  this  state,  to  enable  the  govern-’ 
merit  to  call  forth  the  militia  to  enforce  the  laws  when  a  powerful’ 
combination  should  take  place  to  oppose  them.  This  is  the  same 
power  which  the  constitution  is  to  have.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
difference  between  calling  forth  the  militia,  when  a  combination  is 
formed  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  laws,  which  the  sheriff  or 
constable  carrying  with  him  a  body  of  militia  to  execute  them  in  the 
first  instance  ;  which  is  a  construction  not  warranted  by  the  Clause. 
There  is  an  act  also  ill  this  state,  empowering  $ie  officers  of  the  cus¬ 
toms  to  summon  any  persons  to  assist  them  when  they  meet,  with 
obstruction  in  executing  their  duty.  This  shews  the  necessity  of 
giving  the  government  power  to  call  forth  the  militia  when  the  laws 
are  resisted.  It  is  a  power  vested  in  every  legislature  in  the  union, 
and  which  is  necessary  to  every  government.  He  then  moved,  that 
the  clerk  should  read  those  acts — which  were  accordingly  lead. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  asked  to  what  purpose  the  laws  were 
read?  The  objection  was  that  too  much  power  was  given  to  con¬ 
gress — power  that  would  finally  destroy  the  state  governments,  more 
.effectually  by  insidious  underhanded  means,  than  such  as  could  b© 
yqi,.  3.  25 


386 


DEBATES* 


[Ma»0?T* 

•  / 

openly  practised*  This,  said  he,  is  the  opinion  of  many  worthy 
men,  not  ouly  in  this  convention,  but  in  all  parts  of  America.  These 
laws  could  only  shew,  that  the  legislature  of  this  state  could  pass 
such  acts.  He  thought  they  militated  against  the  cession  of  this  pow¬ 
er  to  congress,  because  the  state  governments  could  call  forth  the  mili¬ 
tia  when  necessary,  so  as  to  compel  a  submission  to  the  laws;  and  as 
they  were  competent  to  it,  congress  ought  not  to  have  the  power* 
The  meeting  of  three  or  four  persons  might  be  called  an  insurrection; 
and  the  militia  might  be  called  out  to  disperse  them.  He  was  not 
satisfied  with  the  explanation  of  the  word  organization,  by  the  gen¬ 
tleman  in  the  military  line,  (Mr  Lee.) 

He  thought  they  were  not  confined  to  the  technical  explanation. 
But  that  congress  could  inflict  severe  and  ignominious  punishments 
on  the  militia,  as  a  necessary  incident  to  the  power  of  organizing 
and  disciplining  them.  The  gentleman  had  said  there  was  no  dan¬ 
ger,  because  the  laws  respecting  the  militia  were  less  rigid  in  the 
other  states  than  this,.  This  was  no  conclusive  argument.  His  fears, 
as  he  had  before  expressed,  were,  that  grievous  punishments  would 
be  indicted  in  order  to  render  the  service  disagreeable  to  the  militia 
themselves  ;  and  induce  them  to  wish  its  abolition,  which  would  af¬ 
ford  a  pretence  for  establishing  a  standing  army.  He  was  convinc¬ 
ed  the  state  governments  ought  to  have  the  control  of  the  militia, 
except  when  they  were  absolutely  necessary  for  general  purposes. 
The  gentleman  had  said,  that  they  would  be  only  subject  to  martial 
law,  when  in  actual  service.  He  demanded  what  was  to  hinder 
congress  from  inflicting  it  always,  and  making  a  general  law  for  the 
purpose]  If  so,  said  he,  it  must  finally  produce,  most  infallibly, 
the  annihilation  of  the  state  governments.  These  were  his  apprehen¬ 
sions  but  he  prayed  God  they  might  be  groundless. 

Mr.  MADISON  replied,  that  the  obvious  explanation  was,  that 
the  states  were  to  appoint  the  officers,  and  govern  all  the  militia  ex¬ 
cept  that  part  which  was  called  into  the  actual  service  of  the  United 
States.  He  asked,  if  powers  were  given  to  the  general  government, 
if  we  must  not  give  it  executive  power  to  use  it]  The  vice  of  the 
old  system  was,  that  congress  could  not  execute  the  powers  nomi¬ 
nally  vested  in  them.  If  the  contested  clause  were  expunged,  this 
system  would  have  nearly  the  same  defect. 

Mr.  HENRY  wished  to  know  what  authority  the  state  govern¬ 
ment;-  had  over  the  militia  I 

Mr.  MADISON  answered,  that  the  state  governments  might  do 
what  they  thought  proper  with  the  militia,  when  they  were  not  in 
the  actual  service  of  the  United  States.  They  might  make  use  of 
thorn  to  suppress  insurrections,  quell  riots,  &c.  and  call  on  the 
genera!  government  for  the  militia  af  any  other  state  to  aid  them,  if 

lii'C.  SaVTi  tf. 


Corbin.] 


VIRGINIA. 


387 


Mr.  HENRY  replied,  that  as  the  clause  expressly  vested  the 
general  government  with  power  to  call  them  out  to  suppress  insur¬ 
rections,  &c.  it  appeared  to  him  most  decidedly,  that  the  power  of 
suppressing  insurrections  was  exclusively  given  to  congress.  If  it 
remained  in  the  states,  it  was  by  implication. 

Mr.  CORBIN,  after  a  short  address  to  the  chair,  in  which  he  ex¬ 
pressed  extreme  reluctance  to  get  up,  said,  that  all  contentions  on 
this  subject  might  be  ended,  by  adverting  to  the  fourth  section  of  the 
fourth  article,  which  provides,  “that  the  United  States  shall  guar¬ 
antee  to  every  state  in  the  union,  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion  ;  and  on  application 
of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive  (when  the  legislature  cannot 
be  convened)  against,  domestic  violence.”  He  thought  this  section 
gave  the  states  power  to  use  their  own  militia ,  and  call  on  congress 
for  the  militia  of  other  states.  He  observed,  that  our  representa¬ 
tives  were  to  return  every  second  year  to  mingle  with  their  fellow 
citizens.  He  asked  then,  how  in  the  name  of  God,  they  would 
make  laws  to  destroy  themselves?  The  gentleman  had  told  us  that 
nothing  could  be  more  humiliating,  than  that  the  state  governments 
eould  not  control  the  general  government.  He  thought  the  gentleman 
might  as  well  have  complained,  that  one  county  could  not  control 
the  state  at  large.  Mr  Corbin  then  said  that  all  confederate  govern¬ 
ments  had  the  care  of  national  defence,  and  that  congress  ought  to 
have  it.  Animadverting  on  Mr  Henry’s  observations,  that  the  French 
had  been  the  instruments  of  their  own  slavery,  that  the  Germans 
had  enslaved  the  Germans,  and  that  the  Spaniards  the  Spaniards, 
&c,  he  asked  if  those  nations  knew  any  thing  of  representation? 
The  want  of  this  knowledge  was  the  principal  cause  of  their  bon¬ 
dage.  Fie  concluded  by  observing,  that  the  general  government 
had  no  power  but  such  as  the  state  government  had,  and  that  argu¬ 
ments  against  the  one  held  against  the  other. 

Mr  GRAYSON,  in  reply  to  Mr  Corbin,  said  he  was  mistaken 
when  he  produced  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article,  to  prove 
that  the  state  governments  had  a  right  to  intermeddle  with  the  mili¬ 
tia,  He  was  of  opinion,  that  a  previous  application  must  be  made 
to  the  fedeial  head,  by  the  legislature  when  in  session,  or  otherwise 
by  the  executive  of  any  state,  before  they  could  interfere  with  the 
militia.  In  his  opinion,  no  instance  could  be  adduced,  where  the 
states  could  employ  the  militia.  For  in  all  the  cases  wherein  they 
could  be  employed,  congress  had  the  exclusive  direction  and  control 
of  them.  Disputes,  he  observed,  had  happened  in  many  countries? 
where  this  power  should  be  lodged.  In  England  there  was  a  dis¬ 
pute  between  the  parliament  and  king  Charles,  who  should  have 
power  over  the  militia.  Were  this  governnent  well  organized,  he 


388 


DEBATES, 


[URAYSOST, 


would  not  object  to  giving  it  power  over  the  militia.  But  as  it  ap¬ 
peared  to  him  to  be  without  checks,  and  to  tend  to  the  formation  of 

i 

an  aristocratic  body,  he  could  not  agree  to  it.  Thus  organized,  his 
imagination  did  not  reach  so  far  as  to  know  where  this  power  should 
be  lodged.  He  conceived  the  state  governments  to  be  at  the  mercy 
of  the  generality.  He  wished  to  be  open  to  conviction,  but  he  could 
see  no  case  where  the  states  could  command  the  militia.  He  did 
not  believe  that  it  corresponded  with  the  intentions  of  those  who 
ormed  it,  and  it  was  altogether  without  an  equilibrium.  He  humbly 
apprehended  that  the  power  of  providing  for  orgariizing  and  disciplin¬ 
ing  the  militia,  enabled  the  government  to  make  laws  for  regulating 
them,  and  inflicting  punishments  for  disobedience,  neglect,  &c. 
Whether  it  would  be  the  spirit  of  the  generality  to  lay  unusual  pun¬ 
ishments,  he  knew  not,  but  he  thought  they  had  the  power,  if  they 
thought  proper  to  exercisp  it.  He  thought  that  if  there  w as  a  con¬ 
structive  implied  power  left  in  the  stafes,  yet  as  the  line  was  not 
clearly  marked  between  the  two  governments,  it  would  create  differ¬ 
ences.  He  complained  of  the  uncertainty  of  the- expression,  and 
wished  it  to  be  so  clearly  expressed  that  the  people  might  see  where 
the  states  could  interfere. 

As  the  exclusive  power  of  arming,  organizing,  &c..was  given  to 
congress,  they  might  entirely  neglect  them:  or  they  might  be  armed 
in  one  part  of  the  union,  and  totally  neglected  in  another.  This  he 
apprehended  to  be  a  probably  circumstance.  In  this  he  might  be 
thought  suspicious:  but  he  was  justified  by  what  had  happened  in 
other  countries.  He  wished  to  know  what  attention  had  been  paid 
to  the  militia  of  Scotland  and  Irelapd,  since  the  union;  and  what 
laws  had  been  made  to  regulate  them?  There  is,  says  Mr  Grayson, 
an  excellent  militia  law  in  England;  and  such  as  I  wish  to  be  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  general  government.  They  have  30,000  select  militia 
in  England.  But  the  militia  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  are  neglected.. 
I  see  the  necessity  of  the  concentration  of  the  forces  of  the  union. 
I  acknowledge  that  militia  are  the  best  means  of  quelling  insurrec¬ 
tions,  and  that  we  have  an  advantage  over  the  English  government. 
For  their  regular  forces  answer  the  purposp.  But  I  object  to  the 
want  of  checlqs,  and  a  line  of  discrimination  between  the  state 
governments  and  the  generality. 

Mr  JOHN  MARSHALL  asked,  if  gentlemen  were  serious  when 
they  asserted  that  if  the  State  governments  had  power  to  interfere 
with  the  militia,  it  was  by  implication?  If  they  were,  he  asked  the 
committee,  whether  the  least  attention  would  not  shew  that  they 
were  mistaken?  The  state  governments  did  not  derive  their  powers 
from  the  general  government.  But  each  government  derived  its 
.powers  from  the  people,  and  each  was  to  act  according  to  the  powers 


■Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


389 


given  it.  Would  any  gentleman  deny  this?  He  demanded  if 
powers  not  given,  were  retained  by  implication?  Could  any  man 
say  so?  Could  any  man  say,  that  this  power  was  not  retained  by 
the  states,  as  they  had  not  given  it  away?  For,  says  he,  does  not 
a  power  remain  till  it  is  given  away?  The  state  legislatures  had 
power  to  command  and  govern  their  militia  before,  and  have  it  still, 
undeniably,  unless  there  be  something  in  this  constitution  that  takes 
it  away. 

For  continental  purposes  congress  may  call  forth  the  militia,  as 
to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  invasions.  But  the  power  given 
to  the  states  by  the  people  is  not  taken  away  :  for  the  constitution 
does  not  say  so.  In  the  confederation  congress  had  this  power. 
But  the  state  legislatures  had  it  also.  The  power  of  legislating 
given  them  within  the  ten  miles  square  is  exclusive  of  the  states, 
because  it  is  expressed  to  be  exclusive.  The  truth  is,  that  when 
power  is  given  to  the  general  legislature,  if  it  was  in  the  state  legis¬ 
lature  before,  both  shall  exercise  it ;  unless  there  be  an  incompati¬ 
bility  in  the  exercise  by  one,  to  that  by  the  other  :  or  negative  words 
precluding  the  state  governments  from  it.  But  there  are  no  nega¬ 
tive  words  here.  It  rests  therefore  with  the  states.  To  me  it  ap¬ 
pears  then  unquestionable,  that  the  state  governments  can  call  forth 
the  militia,  in  case  the  constitution' should  be  adopted,  in  the  same 
manner  as  they  could  have  done,  before  its  adoption.  Gentlemen 
have  said,  that  the  states  cannot  defend  themselves  without  an  ap¬ 
plication  to  congress,  because  congress  can  interpose!  Does  not 
every  man  feel  a  refutation  of  the  argument  in  his  own  breast?  I 
will  show,  that  there  could  not  be  a  combination  between  those  who 
formed  the  constitution,  to  take  away  this  power.  All  the  restraints 
intended  to  be  laid  on  the  state  governments  (besides  where  an  ex¬ 
clusive  power  is  expressly  given  to  congress)  are  contained  in  the 
tenth  seetion,  of  the  first  article.  This  power  is  not  included  in  the 
restrictions  in  that  section.  But  what  excludes  every  possibility  of 
doubt,  is  the  last  part  of  it.  That  “  no  state  shall  engage  in  war, 
unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  will  not  ad¬ 
mit  of  delay.”  When  invaded,  they  can  engage  in  war,  as  also 
when  in  imminent  danger.  This  clearly  proves,  that  the  states  can 
use  the  militia  when  they  find  it  necessary.  The  worthy  member 
last  up,  objects  to  the  continental  government  possessing  the  pow¬ 
er  of  disciplining  the  militia,  because,  though  all  its  branches  be 
derived  from  the  people,  he  says,  they  will  form  an  aristocratic  go¬ 
vernment,  unsafe  and  unfit  to  be  trusted. 

Mr  GRAYSON  answ'ered,  that  he  only  said  it  was  so  constructed 
as  to  form  a  great  aristocratic  body. 

Mr.  MARSHALL  replied,  that  he  was  not  certain  whether  he  un- 


390 


DEBATES. 


[Marshall,. 


derstood  him.  But  he  thought  he  had  said  so.  He  conceived  that 
as  the  government  was  drawn  from  the  people,  the  feelings  and  in¬ 
terests  of  the  people  would  be  attended  to,  and  that  we  would  be 
safe  in  granting  them  power  to  regulate  the  militia.  When  the  go¬ 
vernment  is  drawn  from  the  people,  continued  Mr.  Marshall,  and  de¬ 
pending  on  the  people  for  its  continuance,  oppressive  measures  will 
not  be  attempted,  as  they  will  certainly  draw  on  their  authors  the  re¬ 
sentment  of  those  on  whom  they  depend.  On  this-  government,  thus 
depending  on  ourselves  for  its  existence,  I  will  rest  my  safety,  not¬ 
withstanding  the  danger  depicted  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  I 
cannot  help  being  surprised  that  the  worthy  member  thought  this 
power  so  dangerous.  What  government  is  able  to  protect  you  in 
time  of  war"?  Will  any  state  depend  on  its  own  exertions?  The 
consequence  of  such  dependence  and  withholding  this  power  from 
congress  will  be,  that  state  will  fall  after  state,  and  be  a  sacrifice  to 
the  want  of  power  in  the  general  government. — United  weave  strong , 
divided  we  fall.  Will  you  prevent  the  general  government  from 
drawing  the  militia  of  one  state  to  another,  when  the  consequence 
would  be,  that  every  state  must  depend  on  itself?  The  enemy  pos¬ 
sessing  the  water,  can  quickly  go  from  one  state  to  another.  No 
state  will  spare  to  anothei  its  militia,  which  it  conceives  necessary 
for  itself.  It  requires  a  superintending  power,  in  order  to  call  forth 
the  resources  of  all  to  protect  all.  If  ib is  be  not  done,  each  state 
will  fall  a  sacrifice.— This  system  merits  the  highest  applause  in 
this  respect.  The  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  a  general  regula¬ 
tion  may  be  made  to  inflict  punishments.  Does  he  imagine  that  a 
militia  law  is  to  be  engrafted  on  the  scheme  of  government,  so  as  to 
render  it  incapable  of  being  changed?  The  idea  of  the  worthy  mem¬ 
ber  supposes,  that  men  renounce  their  own  interests.  This  would 
produce  general  inconveniences  throughout  the  union,  and  would  be 
equally  opposed  by  all  the  states.  But  the  worthy  member  fears, 
that  in  one  part  of  the  union  they  will  be  regulated  and  disciplined, 
and  in  another  neglected.  This  danger  is  enhanced,  by  leaving  this- 
power  to  each  state  ;  for  some  states  may  attend  to  their  militia,  and 
others  may  neglect  them.  If  congress  neglept  our  militia,  we  can 
arm  them  ourselves.  Cannot  Virginia  import  arms., — Cannot  she 
put  them  into  the  hands  of  her  militiamen? 

He  then  concluded  by  observing,  that  the  power  of  governing  the 
militia,  was  not  vested  in  the  states  by  implication,  because  being 
possessed  of  it  antecedent  to  the  adoption  of  the  government,  and 
not  being  divested  of  it,  by  any  grant  or  restriction  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  they  must  necessarily  be  as  fully  possessed  of  it  as  ever  they 
had  been.  And  it  could  not  be  said,  that  the  states  derived  any 
powers  from  that  system,  but  retained  them,  though  not  acknowled¬ 
ged  in  any  part  of  it. 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


391 


Mr  GRAYSON  acknowledged  that  all  power  was  drawn  from 
the  people.  But  he  could  see  none  of  these  checks  in  which  ought 
to  characteristise  a  free  government.  It  had  not  such  checks  as  even 
the  British  government  had.  He  thought  it  so  organized  as  to  form 
an  aristocratic  body.  If  we  looked  at  the  democratic  branch  and 
the  great  extent  of  country,  he  said,  it  must  be  considered  in  a  great 
degree  to  be  an  aristocratic  representation.  As  they  w’ere  elected 
with  craven  appetites,  and  wishing  for  emoluments,  they  might  unite 
with  the  other  two  branches.  They  might  give  reciprocally  good 
offices  to  one  another,  and  mutually  protect  each  other.  For  he  con¬ 
sidered  them  all  as  united  in  interest,  and  as  but  one  branch.  That 
there  was  no  check  to  prevent  such  a  combination,  or  in  cases  of 
concurrent  powers,  was  there  a  line  drawn  to  prevent  interference 

i 

between  the  state  governments  and  the  generality, 

Mr  HENRY  still  retained  his  opinion,  that  the  states  had  no  right 
to  call  forth  the  militia  to  suppress  insurrections,  &c.  But  the  right 
interpretation  (and  such  as  the  nations  of  the  earth  had  put  upon 
the  concession  of  power)  was,  that  when  power  was  given,  it  was 
given  exclusively.  He  appealed  to  the  committee,  if  power  was 
not  confined  in  the  hands  of  a  few  in  almost  all  countries  of  the  world. 
He  referred  to  their  candour,  if  the  construction  of  conceded  power, 
was  not  an  exclusive  concession  in  nineteen-twentieth  parts  of  the 
world.  The  nations  which  retained  their  liberty,  were  comparatively 
few.  America  would  add  to  the  number  of  the  oppressed  nations, 
if  she  depended  on  constructive  rights,  and  argumentative  implica¬ 
tion  :  That  the  powers  given  to  congress  wereYxclusively  given, 
was  very  obvious  to  him.  The  rights  which  the  states  had,  must  be 
founded  on  the  restrictions  on  congress.  He  asked,  if  the  doctrine 
which  had  been  so  often  circulated,  that  rights  not  given  were  re¬ 
tained,  was  true,  why  there  were  negative  clauses  to  restrain  con¬ 
gress'?  He  told  gentlemen,  that  these  clauses  were  sufficient  to 
shake  all  their  implication.  For,  says  he,  if  congress  had  no  power 
but  was  given  to  them,  why  restrict  them  by  negative  words?  Is 
not  the  clear  implication  this — that  if  these  restrictions  were  not  in¬ 
serted,  they  could  have  performed  what  they  prohibit? 

The  worthy  member  had  said,  that  congress  ought  to  have  power 
to  protect  all,  and  had  given  this  system  the  highest  encomium.  But 
insisted  that  the  power  over  the  militia  was  concurrent.  To  obviate 
the  futility  of  this  doctrine,  Mr  Henry  alledged,  that  it  was  not 
reducible  to  practice.  Examine  it,  says  he — reduce  it  to  practice. 
Suppose  an  insurrection  in  Virginia,  and  suppose  there  be  danger 
apprehended  of  an  insurrection  in  another  state,  from  the  exercise 
of  the  government ;  or  suppose  a  national  war,  and  there  be  discon¬ 
tents  among  the  people  of  this  state,  that  produces  or  threatens  an 


VIRGINIA. 


39*2 


[IlEKRt> 


insurrection  ;  suppose  congress  in  either  case,  demands  a  number 
of  militia,  will  they  not  be  obliged  to  go  !  Where  are  your  reserved.' 
rights,  when  your  militia  go  to  a  neighboring  state!  Which  call  is 
to  be  obeyed,  the  congressional  call,  or  the  call  of  the  state  legisla¬ 
ture  !  The  call  of  congress  must  be  obeyed.  I  need  not  remind  this 
committee  that  the  sweeping  clause  .will  cause  their  demands  to  be 
submitted  to.  This  clause  enables  them  “  to  make  all  laws  which 
shall  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  execution  all  the  powers 
vested  by  this  constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof.”  Mr  Chairman,  I  will  turn 
to  another  clause  which  relates  to  the  same  subject,  and  tends  to 
shew  the  fallacy  of  their  argument. 

The  tenth  section,  of  the  first  article,  to  which  reference  was  made 
by  the  worthy  member,  militates  against  himself.  It  says,  that 
“  no  .state  shall  engage  in  war,  unless  actually  invaded.”  If  you 
give  this  clause  a  fair  construction,  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  it! 
What,  does  this  relate  to!  Not  domestic  insurrections,  but  war. 
If  the  country  be  invaded,  a  state  may  go  to  war  ;  but  cannot  sup¬ 
press  insurrections.  If  there  should  happen  an  insurrection  of 
slaves,  the  country  cannot  be  said  to  be  invaded.  They  .cannot, 
therefore  suppress  it  without  the  interposition  of  congress.  The 
fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article,  expressly  directs,  that  in  case  of 
domestic  violence, congress  shall protecp  the  states  on  application  of 
the  legislature  or  executive;  and  the  eighth  section  of  ihe  first  article 
gives  congress  power-  to  call  forth  the  militia  to  quell  insurrections  : 
there  cannot,  therefore,  be  a  concurrent  power.  The  state  legislatures 
ought  to  have  power  to  call  forth  the  efforts  of  the  militia,,  when 
necessary.  Occasions  for  calling  them  out  ma}?'  be  urgent,  pressing,, 
and  instantaneous.  The  states(cannot  now  call  them,  let  an  insur¬ 
rection  be  ever  so  perilous,  without  an  application  to  cbngress.— 
So  long  p,  delay  may  be  fatal. 

There  are  three  clauses,  which  prove  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt,  that  congress,  andxowgtm  only, can  call  forth  the  militia.  The 
clause  giving  congress  power  to  call  them  out  to  suppress  insurrec¬ 
tions,  &c.  that  which  restrains  a  state  from  engaging  in  war,  except 
when  actually  invaded — and  that  which  requires  congress  to  protect 
the  states  against  domestic  violence,  render  it  impossible  that  a 
state  can  have  power  to  intermeddle  with  them.  Will  not  congress 
fmd  refuge  for  their  actions  in  these  clauses!  With  respect  to  the 
concurrent  jurisdiction,  it  is  a  political  monster  of  absurdity.  We 
have  passed  that  clause  which  gives  congress  an  unlimited  authority 
over  the  national  wealth ;  and  here  is  an  unbounded  control  ove 
the  national  strength.  Notwithstanding  this  clear  unequivocal 
telinquishment  of  the  power  of  controlling  the  militia,  you  say  thv 


HffNRY.j 


DEBATES. 


393 


states  retain  it  for  the  very  purposes  given  to  congress.  Is  it  fair 
to  say  that  you  gave  the  power  of  arming  the  militia,  and  at  the 
same  time  you  sajr  you  reserve  it  ?  This  great  national  govern¬ 
ment  ought  not  to  be  left  in  this  condition.  If  it  be,  it  will  termin¬ 
ate  in  the  destruction  of  our  liberties. 

Mr  MADISON.  Mr  Chairman,  let  me  ask  this  committee,  and 
the  honorable  member  last  up,  wThat  we  are  to  understand  from  this 
reasoning?  The  power  must  be  vested  in  congress,  or  in  the  state 
governments?  or  there  must  be  a  division  or  concurrence.  He  is 
against  division — It  is  a  political  monster.  He  will  not  give  it  to 
congress,  for  fear  of  oppression.  Is  it  to  be  vested  in  the  state  go¬ 
vernments.  If  so,  where  is  the  provision  for  general  defence  ?  I 
ever  America  should  be  attacked,  the  states  would  fall  successively 
It  will  prevent  them  from'  giving  aid  to  their  sister  states.  For  as 
each  state  will  expect  to  be  attacked,  and  wish  to  guard  against  it 
each  will  retain  its  own  militia  for  its  own  defence.  Where  is  this 
power  to  be  deposited  then,  unless  in  the  general  government^  if  it 
be  dangerous  to  the  public  safety  to  give  it  exclusively  to  the  states. 
If  it  must  be  divided,  let  him  shew  a  better  manner  of  doing  it  than 
that  which  is  in  thfe  constitution.^  I  cannot  agree  with  the  other 
honorable  gentleman,  that  there  is  no  check.  There  is  a  powerful 
check  in  that  paper.  The  state  governments  are  to  govern  the  militia, 
when  not  called  forth  for  general  national  purposes  ;  and  congress 
is  to  govern  such,  part  only  as  may  be  in  the  actual  service  of  the 
union.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  and  positive  than  this.  It  ex¬ 
pressly  empowers  congress  to  govern  them  when  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  then  clear,  tpat'the  states  govern  them  when 
they  are  not.  With  respect  to  supressing  insurrections,  I  say  that 
those  clauses  which  were  mentioned  by  the  honorable  gentleman, 
are  compatible  with  a  concurrence  of  the  power.  By  the  first,  con¬ 
gress  is  to  call  them  forth  to  suppress  insurrections  and  repel  inva¬ 
sions  of  foreign 'powers.  A  concurrence  in  the  former  case,  is  neces¬ 
sary,  because  a  whole  state  may  be  in  insurrection  against  the  union. 
What  has  passed,  may  perhaps  justify  this  apprehension.  The 
safety  of  the  union  and  particular  states,  requires  that  the  general 
government  - should  have  power  to  repel  foreign  invasions.  The 
fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
exercise  of  the  power  by  the  states.  The  wrords  are,  “  The  United 
States  shall  gnarantee  to  evefy  state  in  this  union,  a  republican  form 
of  government  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion  ;  and 
on  application  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive,  (when  the 
legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against  domestic  violence.”  The 
word  invasion  here,  after  power  had  been  given  in  the  former  clause 
to  repel  invasions  may  be  thought  tautologous,  but  it  has  a  different 
meaning  from  the  other.  This  clause  speaks  of  a  particular  state. 


DEBATES, 


394 


[Mason. 


It  means  that  it  shall  be  protected  from  invasion  by  other  states. 
A  republican  government  is  to  be  guaranteed  to  each  state,  and  they 
are  to  be  protected  from  invasion  from  other  states,  as  well  as  from 
foreign  powers  :  And  on  application  by  the  legislature  or  executive 
as  the  case  may  be,  the  militia  of  the  other  states  are  to  be 
called  to  suppress  domestic  insurrections.  Does  this  bar  the  states 
from  calling  forth  their  own  militia?  No  ;  but  it  gives  them  a  sup¬ 
plementary  security  to  suppress  insurrections  and  domestic  violence. 

The  other  clause  runs  in  these  words,  “No  state  shall,  without 
the  consent  of  congress,  lay  any  duty  on  tonnage,  keep  troops  or 
ships  of  war  in  time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact 
with  another  state,  or  with  a  foreign  power,  or  engage  in  war,  un¬ 
less  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  will  not  admit 
of  delay.”  They  are  restrained  from  making  war,  unless  invaded, 
or  in  imminent  danger.  When  in  such  danger,  they  are  not  restrained. 
I  can  perceive  no  competition  in  these  clauses.  They  cannot  be 
said  to  be  repugnant  to  a  concurrence  of  the  power.  If  we  object  to 
the  constitution  in  this  manner,  and  consume  our  time  in  verbal 
criticism,  we  shall  never  put  an  end  to  the  business. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON.' — Mr  Chairman,  a  worthy  member  has 
asked,  who  are  the  militia,  if  they  be  not  the  people  of  this  country, 
and  if  we  are  not  to  be  protected  from  the  fate  of  the  Germans, 
Prussians,  &c.  by  our  representation?  I  ask  who  are  the  militia? 
They  consist  now  of  the  whole  people,  except  a  few  public  officers. 
But  1  cannot  say  who  will  be  the  militia  of  the  future  day.  If  that  pa¬ 
per  on  the  table  gets  no  alteration,  the  militia  of  the  future  day  may 
not  consist  of  all  classes,  high  and  low,  and  rich  and  poor,  but  they 
may  be  confined  to  the  lower  and  middle  classes  of  the  people, 
granting  exclusion  to  the  higher  classes  of  the  people.  If  we  should 
ever  see  that  day,  the  most  ignominious  punishments  and  heavy 
fines  may  be  expected.  Under  the  present  government,  all  ranks 
of  people  are  subject  to  militia  duty.  Under  such  a  full  and  equal 
representation  as  ours,  there  can  be  no  ignominious  punishment  in¬ 
flicted.  But  under  this  national,  or  rather  consolidated  government, 
the  case  will  be  different.  The  representation  being  so  small  and 
inadequate,  they  will  have  no  fellow-feeling  for  the  people.  They 
may  discriminate  people  in  their  owrf  predicament,  and  exempt  from 
duty  all  the  officers  and  lowest  creatures  of  the  national  govern¬ 
ment.  If  there  were  a  more  particular  definition  of  their  powers, 
and  a  clause  exempting  the  militia  from  martial  law  except  when 
in  actual  service,  and  from  fines  and  punishments  of  an  unusual  na¬ 
ture,  then  we  might  expect  that  the  militia  would  be  what  they  are. 
But  if  this  be  not  the  case,  we  cannot  say  how  long  all  classes  of 
people  will  be  included  in  the  militia.  There  will  not  be  the  same 
reason  to  expect  it,  because  the  government  will  be  administered 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


39B 


by  different  people.  We  know  what  they  are  now,  but  know  not 
how  soon  they  may  be  altered. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS. — Mr  Chairman,  I  feel  apprehen¬ 
sions  lest  the  subject  of  our  debates  should  be  misunderstood. 
Every  one  wishes  to  know  the  true  meaning  of  the  system;  but  I 
fear  those  who  hear  us  will  think  we  are  captiously  quibbling  on 
words.  We  have  been  told  in  the  course  of  this  business,  that  th« 
government  will  operate  like  a  screw.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that 
the  exertions  of  the  opposition  are  like  that  instrument.  They  catch 
at  every  thing,  and  take  it  into  their  vortex.  The  worthy  member 
says,  that  this  government  is  defective,  because  it  comes  from  the 
people.  Its  greatest  recommendation  with  me,  is  putting  the  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  people.  He  disapproves  of  it  because  it  does 
not  say  in  what  particular  instances  the  militia  shall  be  called  out 
to  execute  the  laws.  This  is  a  power  of  the  constitution,  and  par¬ 
ticular  instances  must  be  defined  by  the  legislature.  But,  says  the 
worthy  member,  those  laws  which  have  been  read,  are  arguments 
against  the  constitution,  because  they  shew  that  the  states  are  now 
in  possession  of  the  power,  and  competent  to  its  execution.  Would 
you  leave  this  power  in  the  states,  and  by  that  means  deprive  the 
general  government  of  a  power  which  will  be  necessary  for  its  ex¬ 
istence!  If  the  state  governments  find  this  power  necessary,  ought 
not  the  general  government  to  have  a  similar  power!  But,  Sir, 
there  is  no  state  check  in  this  business.  The  gentleman  near  me 
has  shewn  that  there  is  a  veiy  important  check. 

Another  worthy  member  says,  there  is  no  power  in  the  states  to 
quell  an  insurrection  of  slaves.  Have  they  it  now!  If  they  have, 
does  the  constitution  take  it  away!  If  it  does,  it  must  be  in  one  of 
the  three  clauses  which  have  been  mentioned  by  the  worthy  mem¬ 
ber.  The  first  clause  gives  the  general  government  power  to  call 
them  out  when  necessary.  Hoes  this  take  it  away  from  the  state#! 
No.  But  it  gives  an  additional  security:  for,  besides  the  power  in 
the  state  governments  to  use  their  own  militia,  it  will  be  the  duty 
of  the  general  government  to  aid  them  with  the  strength  of  the  union 
when  called  for.  No  part  of  this  constitution  can  shew  that  this 
power  is  taken  away. 

But  an  argument  is  drawn  from  that  clause,  which  says,  “  that  no 
state  shall  engage  in  war  unless  actually  invaded,  or  in  such  immi¬ 
nent  danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay.”  What  does  this  prohibi¬ 
tion  amount  to!  It  must  be  a  war  with  a  foreign  enemy,  that  the 
states  are  prohibited  from  making:  for  the  exception  to  the  restric¬ 
tion  proves  it.  The  restriction  includes  only  offensive  hostility, 
they  are  at  liberty  to  engage  in  war  when  invaded,  or  in  imminent 
danger.  They  are  therefore  not  restiained  from  quelling  domestic 


396 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas^ 


insurrrctions,  which  are  totally  different  from  making  war  with  a 
foreign  power.  But  the  great  thing  to  be  dreaded,  is,  that  during 
an  insurrection,  the  militia  will  be  called  out  from  the  state.  This 
is  his  kind  of  argument.  Is  it  possible  that  at  such  a  time  the 
general  government  would  order  the  militia  to  be  called?  It  is  a 
groundless  objection  to  work  on  gentlemen’s  apprehensions  within 
these  walls.  As  to  the  fourth  article,  it  was  introduced  wholly  for 
the  particular  aid  of  the  states.  A  republican  form  of  government 
is  guaranteed,  and  protection  is  secured  against  invasion  and  domes¬ 
tic  violence  on  application.  Is  not  this  a  guard  as  strong  as  possi¬ 
ble?  Does  it  not  exclude  the  unnecessary  interference  of  congress, 
in  business  of  this  sort? 

The  gentleman  over  the  way,  cannot  tell  who  will  be  the  militia 
at  a  future  day,  arid  enumerates  dangers  of  select  militia.  Let  me 
attend  to  the  nature  of  gentlemen’s  objections.  One  objects  because 
there  will  be  select  militia;  another  objects  because  there  will  be  no 
select  militia;  and  yet  both  oppose  it  on  these  contradictory  princi¬ 
ples.  If  you  deny  the  general  government  the  power  of  calling  out 
the  militia,  there  must  be  a  recurrence  to  a  standing  army.  If  you 
are  really  jealous  of  your  liberties,  confide  in  congress. 

Mr  MASON  rose,  and  said,  that  he  was  totally  misunderstood. 
The  contrast  between  his  friend’s  objection  and  his  was  improper. 
His  friend  had  mentioned  the  propriety  of  having  select  militia,  like 
those  of  Great  Britain,  who  should  be  more  thoroughly  exercised 
than  the  militia  at  large  could  possibly  be.  But  he,  himself,  had 
not  spoken  of  a  selection  of  militia,  but  of  the  exemption  of  the 
highest  classes  of  the  people  from  militia  service;  which  would  jus¬ 
tify  apprehensions  of  severe  and  ignominious  punishments. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  wished  to  know  whether  the  representatives  of 
the  people  would  consent  to  such  exemptions,  as  every  man  who 
had  twenty-five  acres  of  laqd,  could  vote  for  a  federal  representative? 

Mr  GRAYSON — Mi-  Chairman,  I  conceive  that  the  power  of 
providing  and  maintaining  a  navy  is  at  present  dangerous,  however 
warmly  it  may  be  urged  by  gentlemen,  that  America  ought  to  be¬ 
come  a  maritime  power.  If  we  once  give  such  power,  wTe  put  it  in 
the  hands  of  men  whose  interest  it  will  be  to  oppress  us.  It  will 
also  irritate  the  nations  of  Europe  against  us.  Let  us  consider  the 
situation  of  the.  maritime  powers  of  Europe  :  they  are  separated 
from  us  by  the  Atlantic  ocean.  The  riches  of  all  those  countries 
come  by  sea.  Commerce  and  navigation  are  the  principal  sources 
of  their  wealth.  If  we  become  a  maritime  power,  we  shall  be  able 
to  participate  of  their  most  beneficial  business.  Will  they  suffer  us 
to  put  ourselves  in  a  condition  to  rival  them?  I  believe  the  first 
step  of  any  consequence,  which  will  be  made  towards  it,  will  bring 


VIRGINIA. 


397 


f‘GRAY  SON.  ] 

war  uPon  us.  Their  ambition  and  avarice,  most  powerfully  impel 
ihem  to  prevent  our  becoming-  a  naval  station.  We  should  on  this 
occasion  consult  our  ability.  Is  there  any  gentleman  here  who  can 
say,  that  America  can  support  a  navy?  The  riches  of  America  are 
not  sufficient  to  bear  the  enormous  expense  it  must  certainly  occa¬ 
sion.  I  may  be  supposed  to  exaggerate,  but  I  leave  it  to  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  judge  whether  my  information  be  right  or  not. 

It  is,  said,  that  shipwrights  can  be  had  on  better  terms  in  America 
than  in  Europe;  but  necessary  materials  are  so  much  dearer  in  A" 
■  aerica  than  in  Europe,  that  the  aggregate  sum  would  be  greater.  A 
seventy-four  gun  ship  will  cost  you  ninety-eight  thousand  pounds, 
including  guns,  tackle,  &c.  According  to  the  usual  calculation  in 
England,  it  will  cost  you  the  farther  sum  of  forty-eight  thousand 
pounds  to  man  it,  furnish  provisions,  and  pay  officers  and  men.  You 
must  pay  men  more  here  than  in  Europe,  because  their  governments 
being  arbitrary,  then  can  command  the  services  of  their  subjects* 
without  an  adequate  compensation  ;  so  that,  in  all,  the  expenses  of 
such  a  vessel  would  be  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  pounds  in'  one 
year.  Let  gentlemen  consider  them,  the  extreme  difficulty  of  sup¬ 
porting-  a  navy,  and  they  will  eoncurwvith  me,  that  America  cannot 
do  it.  I  have  po  objection  to  such  a  navy  as  will  not  excite  the  jeal¬ 
ousy  or  the  European  countries.  But  I  would  have  the  constitu¬ 
tion  to  say,  that  no  greater  number  of  ships  should  be  had,  than  would 
be  sufficient  to  protect  our  -trade.  Such  a  fleet  would  not  probably 
offend  the  Europeans.  I  am  not  of  a  jealous  disposition  ;  but  when 
I  consider  that  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  my  country  are  in  dan¬ 
ger,,!  beg  to  be  excused  for  expressing  my  apprehensions.  Let  us 
consider  how  this  navy  shall  be  raised.  Wh^t  would  be  the  conse¬ 
quence  under  those  general  words,  “to  provide  and  maintain  a  na¬ 
vy?”  All  the  vessels  of  the  intended  fleet,  would  be  built  and  equip¬ 
ped  in  the  northern  states,  where  they  have  every  necessary  materi 
al  and  convenience  for  the  purpose.  Will  any  gentleman  say,  that 
any  ship  of  war  can  be  raised  to  the  south  of  Cape  Charles?  The 
consequence  will  be,  that  the  southern  states  will  be  in  the  power  of 
the  northern  states. 

We  should  be  called  upon  for  our  share  of  the  expenses,  without 
having  equal  emoluments.  Can  it  be  supposed,  when  this  question 
comes  to  be  agitated  in  congress,-  that,  the  northern  states  will  not 
take  such  measures  as  will  throw  as  much  circulating  money  among 
them  as  possible,  without  any  consideration  to  the  other  states?  If 
I  know  the  nature  of  man,  and  I  believe  I  do,  they  will  have  no  con¬ 
sideration  for  us,.  But  supposing  it  were  not  so,  America  has  noth¬ 
ing  at  all  to  do  with  a  fleet.  Let  us  .remain  for  some  time  in  obscu- 


393 


DEBATES. 


[Grayson. 


srity,  and  rise  by  degrees*  Let  us  not  precipitately  provoke  the  re¬ 
sentment  of  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe.  A  well  regulated  mi¬ 
litia  ought  to  be  the  defence  of  this  country.  In  some  of  our  con¬ 
stitutions  it  is  said  so.  This  constitution  should  have  inculated  the 
principle.  Congress  ought  to  be  under  some  restraint  in  this  re¬ 
spect.  Mr  Grayson  then  added,  that  the  northern  states  would  be 
principally  benefitted  by  having  a  fleet.  That  a  majority  of  the  states 
could  vote  the  raising  a  great  navy,  or  enter  into  any  commercial 
regulation  very  detrimental  to  the  other  states.  In  the  United  Ne¬ 
therlands  there  was  much  greater  security,  as  the  commercial  inter¬ 
est  of  no  state  could  be  sacrificed  without  its  own  consent.  The 
raising  a  fleet  was  the  daily  and  favorite  subject  of  conversation  in 
the  northern  states.  He  apprehended,  that  if  attempted,  it  would 
draw  us  into  a  war  with  Great  Britain  or  France.  As  the  American 
fleet  would  not  be  competent  to  the  defence  of  all  the  states,  the 
southern  states  would  be  most  exposed.  He  referred  to  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  the  late  war,  as  a  proof  of  what  he  said.  At  the  period  the 
southern  states  were  most  distressed,  the  northern  states,  he  said, 
were  most  happy.  They  have  privateers  in  abundance,  whereas 
we  had  but  few.  Upon  the  whole,  he  thought  we  should  depend  on 
our  troops  on  shore,  and  that  it  was  very  impolitic  to  give  this  pow¬ 
er  to  congress,  without  any  limitation. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  remarked,  that  the  gentleman  last  up  had  made 
two  observations — the  one,  that  we  ought  not  to  give  congress  pow¬ 
er  to  raise  a  navy ;  and  the  other,  that  we  had  not  the  means  of 
supporting  it.  Mr  Nicholas  thought  it  a  false  doctrine.  Congress, 
says  he,  has  a  discretionary  power  to  do  it  when  necessary.  They 
are  not  bound  to  do  it  in  five  or  ten  years,  or  at  any  particular 
time.  It  is  presumable  therefore,  they  will  postpone  it  until  it  be 
proper. 

Mi  GRAYSON  had  no  objection  to  giving  congress  power  of 
raising  such  a  fleet  as  suited  the  circumstances  of  Jhe  country.  But 
he^could  not  agree  to  give  that  unlimited  power  which  was  delineat¬ 
ed  in  that  paper. 

Adverting  to  the  clause  investing  congress  with  the  power  of  ex¬ 
clusive  legislation  in  a  district,  not  exceeding  ten  miles  square  ;  he 
said,  he  had  before  expressed  his  doubts,  that  this  district  would  be 
the  favorite  of  the  generality,  any  that  it  would  be  possible  for  them 
to  give  exclusive  privileges  of  commerce  to  those  residing  within  it. 
He  had  illustrated  what  he  said  by  Europeans  examples.  It  might 
be  asaid  to  be  impracticable  to  exercise  this  power,  in  this  manner. 
Among  the  various  laws  and  customs  which  pervaded  Europe,  there 
were  exclusive  privileges  and  immunities  enjoyed  in  many  places. 


[Graxson. 


VIRGINIA. 


399 


He  thought  that  this  ought  to  be  guarded  against:  for  should  such 
exclusive  privileges  be  granted  to  merchants  residing  within  the 
ten  miles  square,  it  would  be  highly  injurious  to  the  inhabitants  of 
other  states. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  thought  that  there  were  few  clauses  in 
the  constitution,  so  dangerous  as  that  which  gave  congress  exclu¬ 
sive  power  of  legislation,  within  ten  miles  square.  Implication,  he 
observed,  was  capable  of  any  extension,  and  would  probably  be  ex¬ 
tended  to  augment  the  congressional  powers.  But  here  there  was 
no  need  of  implication.  This  clause  gave  them  an  unlimited  au¬ 
thority  in  every  possible  case  within  that  district.  This  ten  miles 
square,  says  Mr  Mason,  may  set  at  defiance  the  laws  of  the  surround¬ 
ing  states,  and  may,  like  the  custom  of  the  superstitious  days  of 
our  ancestors,  become  the  sanctuary  of  the  blackest  crimes.  Here 
the  federal  courts  are  to  sit.  We  have  heard  a  good  deal  said  of 
justice. 

It  has  been  doubted  whether  jury  trial  be  secured  in  civil  cases* 
But  I  will  suppose,  that  we  shall  have  juries  in  civil  cases.  What 
3ort  of  a  jury  shall  we  have  within  the  ten  miles  square!  The  im¬ 
mediate  creatures  of  the  government.  What  chance  will  poor  men 
get,  where  congress  have  power  of  legislating  in  all  cases  whatever, 
and  wffiere  judges  and  juries  may  be  under  their  influence,  and  bound 
to  support  their  operations!  Even  with  juries  the  chance  of  justice 
may  here  be  very  small,  as  congress  have  unlimited  authority,  leg¬ 
islative,  executive,  and  judicial.  Lest  this  power  should  not  be 
sufficient,  they  have  it  in^every  case.  Now,  sir,  if  an  attempt'should 
be  made  to  establish  tyranny  over  the  people,  here  are  ten  miles 
square,  where  the  greatest  offender  may  meet  protection.  If  any  of 
their  officers,  or  creatures,  should  attempt  to  oppress  the  people,  or 
should  actually  perpetrate  the  blackest  deed,  he  has  nothing  to  do, 
but  get  into  the  ten  miles  square.  Why  was  this  dangerous  powrer 
given!  Felons  may  receive  an  asylum  there,  and  in  their  strong 
holds.  Gentlemen  have  said  that  it  was  dangerous  to  argue  against 
possible  abuse,  because  there  could  be  no  power  delegated  but  might 
be  abused.  It  is  an  incontrovertible  axiom,  that  when  the  dan¬ 
gers  that  may  arise  from  the  abuse ,  are  greater  than  the  benefits  that 
may  result  from  the  use,  the  power  ought  to  be  withheld.  I  do  not 
conceive  that  this  power  is  at  all  necessary,  though  capable  of  being 
greatly  abused. 

We  are  told  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  Holland  has  its 
Hague.  I  confess  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  wffiat  inference  he  could 

C? 

draw  from  that  observation.  This  is  the  place  where  the  deputies 
of  the  United  Provinces  meet  to  transact  the  public  business.  But 


400 


DEBATES. 


[Madison* 

I  do  not  recollect  that  they  have  any  exclusive  jurisdiction  whatever 
in  that  place,  but  are  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  province  in  which 
the  Hague  is.  To  what  purpose  the  gentleman  mentioned  that  Hol¬ 
land  has  its  Hague,  I  cannot  see.  j 

Mr  MASON  then  observed,  that  he  would  willingly  give  them  ex¬ 
clusive  power,  as  far  as  respected  the  police  and  good  government  of 
the  place,  but  he  would  give  them  no  more,  because  he  thought  it 
unnecessary.  He  was  very  willing  to  give  them  in  this  as^well  as 
in  all  other  cases,  those  powers  which  he  thought  indispensably  ne¬ 
cessary. 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  I  did  Conceive,  sir,  that  the 
clause  under  consideration,  was  one  of 'those  parts  which  would 
speak  its  own  praise.  It  is  hardly  necessaty  to  say  any  thing  con¬ 
cerning  it.  Strike  it  out  of  the  system,  *and  let  me  a‘sk,  whether 
there  would  not  be  much  larger  scope  for  those  dangers!  I  cannot 
comprehend  that  the  power  of  legislating  over  a  small  district,  which 

cannot  exceed  ten  miles  square,  and  may  not  be  more  than  one  mile, 
will  involve  tiie  dangers  which  he  apprehends.  If  there  be  any 

knowledge  in  my  mind,  of  the  nature  of  man,  I  should  think  it  would 
be  the  last  thing  that  would  enter  into  the  mind  of  any  man,  to  grant 
exclusive  advantages  in  a  very  circumscribed  district  to  the  preju¬ 
dice  of  the  community  at  large.  We  make  suppositions,  and  after¬ 
wards  deduce  conclusions  from  them,  as  if  they  Were  established  axi¬ 
oms.  But  after  all,  bring  home  this  question^to  ourselves.  It  is 
probable  that  the  members  from  Georgia,  New  Hampshire,  &c., 
will  concur  to  sacrifice  the  privileges  of  their  friends!  I  believe,  that 
whatever  state  mav  become  the  seat  of  the  meneral  government,  it  will 
come  the  object  of  jealousy,  and  of  the  envy  of  the  other  states. 
Let  me  remark,  if  not  already  remarked,  that  there  must  be  a  par- 
cession  by  particular  states,  of  the  district  to  congress,  and  that  the 
states  may  settle  the  terms' of  the  cession.  The  states  may  make 
what  stipulation  they  please  in  it,  and  if  they  apprehend  any  dan¬ 
ger,  they  may  refuse  it  altogether.  How  could  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  be  guarded  from  the  undue  influence  of  particular  states,  or 
from  insults,  without  such  exclusive  power!  If  it  were  at  the 
pleasure  of  a  particular  state  to  control  the  cession  and  deliberations 
of  congress,  would  they  be  secure  from  insults,  or  the  influence  of 
such  state!  If  this  commonwealth  depended  lor  the  freedom  of  de¬ 
liberation,  or  the  laws  of  any  state  where  it  might  be  necessary  to 
sit,  would  it  not  be  liable  to  attacks  of  that  nature  (and  with  more 
indignity)  which  has  been  already  offered  to  congress!  With  re¬ 
spect  to  the  government  of  Holland,  I  believe  the  states  general  have 
no  jurisdiction  over  the  Hague.  But  I  have  heard  that  mentioned 
a  circumstance  which  gave  undue  influence  to  Holland  over  the 


M  4.DIS0V.] 


VIRGINIA. 


401 


rest.  We  mast  limit  our  apprehensions  to  certain  degrees  of  proba- 
ilitv.  The  evils  which  they  urge  must  result  from  this  clause,  are 
extremely  improbable:  nay,  almost  impossible. 

Mr  GRAYSON — Mr  Chairman,  one  answer  which  has  been  gi¬ 
ven,  is  the  improbability  of  the  evil — that  it  will  never  be  attempted 
and  that  it  is  almost  impossible.  This  will  not  satisfy  ns,  when 
we  consider  the  great  attachments  men  have  to  a  great  and  magni¬ 
ficent  capital.  It  would  be  the  interest  of  the  citizens  of  that  dis¬ 
trict,  to  aggrandize  themselves  by  every  possible  means  in  their 
power,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  other  states.  If  we  travel  all  over 
the  world,  we  will  find  that  people  have  aggrandized  their  own  cap¬ 
itals.  Look  at  Russia  and  Prussia.  Every  step  has  been  taken  to 
aggrandize  their  capitals.  In  what  light  are  we  to  consider  the  ten 
miles  square!  It  is  not  to  be  a  fourteenth  state.  The  inhabitants 
will,  in  no  respect  whatever,  be  amenable  to  the  laws  of  any  state. 
A  clause  in  the  fourth  article,  highly  extolled  for  its  wisdom,  will 
be  rendered  nugatory  by  this  exclusive  legislation.  This  clause 
runs  thus,  “no  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any 
law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor, 
but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  la¬ 
bor  or  service  may  be  due.”  Unless  you  consider  the  ten  miles 
square  as  a  state,  persons  bound  to  labor  who  shall  escape  thither, 
will  not  be  given  up.  For  they  are  only  to  be  delivered  up  after 
they  shall  have  escaped  into  a  state.  As  my  honorable  friend  men¬ 
tioned  felons,  who  shall  have  fled  from  justice,  to  the  ten  miles 
square,  cannot  be  apprehended.  The  executive  of  a  state  is  to  ap¬ 
ply  to  that  of  another,  for  the  delivery  of  a  felon.  He  cannot  apply 
to  the  ten  miles  square.  It  was  often  in  contemplation  of  congress 
to  have  power  of  regulating  the  police  of  the  seat  of  government; 
hut  they  never  had  an  idea  of  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases.  The 
power  of  regulating  the  police  and  good  government  of  it  will  secure 
congress  against  insults.  What  originated  the  idea  of  the  exclusive 
legislation  was,  some  insurrection  in  Pennsylvania,  whereby  con¬ 
gress  was  insulted,  on  account  of  which  it  is  supposed  they  left  the 
state. 

It  is  answered,  that  the  consent  of  the  state  must  be  required,  or 
,else  they  cannot  have  such  a  district,  or  places  for  the  erecting  of 
forts,  &c.  But  how  much  is  already  given  them?  Look  at  the  great 
country  to  the  north  west  of  the  Ohio,  extendiug  to  and  commanding 

the  lakes.  ,  .. 

Lbok  at  the  other  end  of  the  Ohio,  towards  South  Carolina,  ex¬ 
pending  to  the  Mississippi.  See  what  these,  in  process  of  time, 
vol.  3* 


I 


402  Virginia.  (Uh, 

ms ty  amount  to.  They  may  grant  Exclusive  privileges  to  any  par¬ 
ticular  part  of  which  they  have  the  possession.  But  it  may  he  ob¬ 
served,  that  those  extensive  countries  shall  be  formed  into  indepen¬ 
dent  states,  and  that  their  consent  will  be  necessary.  To  this  I  an¬ 
swer  that  they  may  still  grant  such  privileges,  as  in  that  country  is 
already  granted  to  congress  by  the  states.  The  grants  of  Virginia, 
South  Carolina,  and  other  states,  will  be  subservient  to  congress  in 
this  respect.  Of  course  it  results  from  the  whole,  that  requiring 
the  consent,  of  the  states  will  be  no  guard  against  this  abuse  of  power. 

A  desultory  conversation  ensued. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  insisted  that  as  the  state  within  which  the  ten 
miles  square  might  be,  could  prescribe  the  terms  on  which  congreea 
should  hold  it,  no  danger  could  arise,  as  no  state  would  consent  to 
injure  itself.  There  was  the  same  security  with  respect  to  tlio 
places  purchased  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  &c.  and  as  to 
the  territory  of  the  United  States,  the  power  of  congress  only  ex-^ 
tended  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  concerning  it,  without 
prejudicing  the  claim  of  any  particular  state;  the  right  of  territory 
not  being  given  up.  That  the  grant  of  those  lands  to  the  United 
States,  was  for  the  general  benefit  of  all  the  states,  and  not  to  be  per¬ 
verted  to  their  prejudice.  That  consequently  whether  that  country 
were  formed  into  new  states  or  not,  the  danger  apprehended  could  not 
take  place.  That* the  seat  of  government  was  to  be  still  a  part  of 
the  state,  and  as  to  general  regulations  was  to  be  considered  as  such. 

Mr  GRAYSON,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  the  ten  miles 
square  could  not  he  viewed  as  a  state;  and  that  the  state  within 
which  it  might  he,  would  have  no  powrer  of  legislating  over  it,  and 
that  consequently  persons  bound  to  labour,  and  felons,  might  receive 
protection  there;  and  that  exclusive  emoluments  might  be  granted 
to  those  residing  within  it.  That  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
being  a  part  of  no  state  or  states,  might  be  appropriated  to  what  use 
congress  pleased,  without  the  consent  of  any  state  or  states,  and 
that  consequently  such  exclusive  privileges  and  exemptions  might 
be  granted,  and  such  protection  afforded  to  fugitives,  within  such 
places  as  congress  should  think  proper.  That  after  mature  consid¬ 
eration,  he  could  not  find  that  the  ten  miles  square  was  to  be  looked 
upon  even  as  a  part  of  a  state,  but  to  be  totally  independent  of  all, 
and  subject  to  the  exclusive  legislation  of  congress. 

Mr  LEL  strongly  expatiated  on  the  impossibility  of  securing 
nay  human  institution  fsom  possible  abuse.  He  thought  the  powers 
conceded  in  the  paper  on  the  table  not  so  liable  to  be  abused  as 
the  powers  of  the  state  governments.  Gentlemen  had  suggested 
that  the  seat  of  government  would  become  a  sanctuary  for  state  Til— 
lains.  and  that  in  a  short  time  ten  miles  square  would  subjugate  a 


ttlNRT.] 


VIRGINIA. 


403 


country  of  eight  hundred  miles  square.  This  appeared  to  him  a 
most  improbable  possibility;  nay,  he  might  call  it  impossibility. 
Were  the  place  crowded  with  rogues,  lie  asked,  if  it  would  be  an 
agreeable  place  of  residence  to  the  members  of  the  general  govern¬ 
ment,  who  were  freely  chosen  by  the  people  and  the  state  govern¬ 
ments'?  Would  the  people  be  so  lost  to  honor  and  virtue,  as  to  se¬ 
lect  men  who  would  willingly  associate  with  the  most  abandoned 
characters?  lie  thought  the  honorable  gentleman’s  objections 
against  remote  possibility  of  abuse,  went  to  prove,  that  government 
of  no  sort  was  eligible,  but  that  a  state  of  nature  was  preferable  to 
n  state  of  civilization.  He  apprehended  no  danger,  and  thought 
that  persons  bound  to  labour,  and  felons,  could  not  take  refugein  the 
ten  miles  square,  or  other  places  exclusively  governed  by  congress, 
because  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  constitution,  and  a  palpable 
usurpation  to  protect  them. 

Mr  HENRY  entertained  strong  suspicions  that  great  dangers 
must  result  from  the  clause  under  consideration.  They  were  not 
removed,  but  rather  confirmed  by  the  remarks  of  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman,  in  saying,  that  it  was  extremely  improbable  that  the  mem¬ 
bers  from  New  Hampshire  and  Georgia,  would  go  and  legislate  ex¬ 
clusively  in  the  ten  miles  square.  If  it  was  so  improbable,  why 
ask  the  power?  Why  demand  a  power  which  was  not  to  be  exer¬ 
cised?  Compare  this  power,  says  he,  to  the  next  clause,  which 
gives  them  power  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  to 
carry  their  laws  into  execution.  By  this  they  have  a  right  to  pass 
uny  law  that  may  facilitate  the  execution  of'their  acts.  They  have 
a  right  by  this  clause  to  make  a  law  that  such  a  district  shall  be  set 
apart  for  any  purpose  they  please,  and  that  any  man  who  shall  act 
contrary  to  their  commands,  within  certain  ten  miles  square,  or  any 
place  they  may  select,  and  strong  holds,  shall  be  hanged  without 
benefit  of  clergy.  If  they  think  any  law  necessary  for  their  personal 
safety,  after  perpetrating  the  most  tyrannical  and  oppressive  deeds, 
cannot  they  make  it  by  this  sweeping  clause?  If  it  benecessary  to 
provide,  not  only  for  this,  but  for  any  department  or  officer  of  con¬ 
gress,  does  not  this  clause  enable  them  to  make  a  law  for  the  pur¬ 
pose?  And  will  not  these  laws,  made  for  those  purposes,  be  para¬ 
mount  to  the  laws  of  the  states?  Will  not  this  clause  give  them  a 
right  to  keep  a  powerful  army  continually  on  foot,  if  they  think  it 
necessary  to  aid  the  execution  of  their  laws?  Is  there  any  act,  how¬ 
ever  atrocious,  which  they  cannot  do  by  virtue  of  this  clause?  Look 
at  the  use  which  has  been  made  in  all  parts  of  the  world  of  that 
human  thing  called  power.  Look  at  the  predominant  thirst  of  do¬ 
minion  which  has  invariably  and  uniformly  prompted  rulers  to  abuse 
i  heir  powers.  Can  you  say,  that  you  will  be  safe  when  you  give 


404 


DEBATES. 


[Henrt^ 


euch  unlimited  powers,  without  any  real  responsibility?  Will  you 
be  safe  when  you  trust  men  at  Philadelphia  with  power  to  make  any 
law  that  will  enable  them  to  carry  their  acts  into  execution?  Will 
not  the  members  of  congress  have  the  same  passions  which  other 
rulers  have  had?  They  will  not  be  superior  to  the  frailties  of  human 
nature.  However  cautious  you  may  be  in  the  selection  of  your  re¬ 
presentatives,  it  will  be  dangerous  to  trust  them  with  such  unbound¬ 
ed  powers.  Shall  we  be  told,  when  about  to  grant  such  illimitable 
authority,  that  it  shall  never  be  exercised! 

I  conjure  you  once  more  to  remember  the  admonition  of  that  sage 
man  who  told  you  that  when  you  give  power,  you  know  not  what 
you  give.  I  know  the  absolute  necessity  of  an  energetic  govern¬ 
ment.  But  is  it  consistent  with  any  principle  of  prudence  or  good 
policy,  to  grant  unlimited,  unbounded  authority,  which  is  so  totally 
unnecessary,  that  gentlemen  say  it  will  never  be  exercised?  But 
gentlemen  say,  that  we  must  make  experiments.  A  wonderful  and 
unheard  of  experiment  it  will  be,  to  give  unlimited  power  unneces¬ 
sarily!  I  admit  my  inferiority  in  point  of  historical  knowledge:  but 
I  believe  no  man  can  produce  an  instance  of  an  unnecessary  and 
unlimited  power,  given  to  a  body  independent  of  the  legislature, 
within  a  particular  district.  Let  any  man  in  this  convention  shew 
me  an  instance  of  such  separate  and  different  powers  of  legislation 
in  the  same  country — shew  me  an  instance,  where  a  part  of  the 
community  was  independent  of  the  whole. 

The  people  within  that  place,  and  the  strong  holds,  may  be  ex¬ 
cused  from  all  the  burdens  imposed  on  the  rest  of  the  society  ;  and 
may  enjoy  exclusive  emoluments,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  rest  of 
the  people.  But  gentlemen  say,  that  the  power  will  not  be  abused. 
They  ought  to  shew  that  it  is  necessary.  All  their  powers  may  be 
fully  carried  into  execution,  without  this  exclusive  authority  in  the 
ten  miles  square.  The  sweeping  clause  will  fully  enable  them  to 
do  what  they  please.  What  could  the  most  extravagant  and  bound¬ 
less  imagination  ask,  but  power  to  do  every  thing?  I  have  reason 
to  suspect  ambitious  grasps  at  power.  The  experience  of  the  world 
teaches  me  the  jeopardy  of  giving  enormous  power.  Strike  this 
clause  out  of  the  form  of  the  government,  and  how  will  it  stand? 
Congress  will  still  have  power,  by  the  sweeping  clause,  to  make 
laws  within  that  place,  and  the  strong  holds,  independently  of  the 
local  authority  of  the  state.  I  ask  you  if  this  clause  be  strtick  out 
whether  the  sweeping  clause  will  not  enable  them  to  protect  them¬ 
selves  from  insult?  If  you  grant  them  these  powers  you  destroy 
every  degree  of  responsibility.  They  will  fully  screen  them  from 
justice,  and  preclude  the  possibility  of  punishing  them.  No  instance 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


405 

«an  be  given  of  such  a  wanton  grasp  of  power — as  an  exclusive  leg 
gislation  in  all  cases  whatever. 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  I  am  astonished  that  the  honora¬ 
ble  member  should  launch  out  into  such  strong  descriptions  without 
any  occasion,  Was  there  ever  a  legislature  in  existence  that  held 
their  sessions  at  a  place  where  they  had  not  jurisdiction!  1  do  not 
mean  such  a  legislature  as  they  have  in  Holland  ;  for  it  desrves  not 
the  name. — Their  powers  are  such  as  congress  have  now ;  which 
we  find  not  reducible  to  practice.  If  you  be  satisfied  with  the  shad¬ 
ow  and  form  instead  of  the  substance,  you  will  render  them  depen¬ 
dent  on  the  local  authority.  Suppose  the  legislature  of  this  country 
should  sit  in  Richmond,  while  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  place 
was  in  some  particular  country,  would  this  country  think  it  safc- 
that  the  general  good  should  be  subject  to  the  paramount  authority  of 
a  part  of  the  community! 

The  honorable  member  asks,  why  ask  for  this  power,  and  if  the 
subsequent  clause  be  not  fully  competent  for  the  same  purpose!  If 
so  what  new  terrors  can  arise  from  this  particular  clause!  It  is  only 
a  superfluity.  If  that  latitude  ojf  construction  which  he  contends 
for,  were  to  take  place  with  respect  to  the  sweeping  clause,  there 
would  be  room  for  those  horrors.  But  it  gives  no  supplementary 
power  :  It  only  enables  them  to  execute  the  delegated  powers.  If 
the  delegation  of  their  powers  be  safe,  no  possible  inconvenience  can 
arise  from  this  clause.  It  is  at  most  but  explanatory .  For  when 
any  power  is  given,  its  delegation  necessarily  involves  authority  to 
make  laws  to  execute  it.  Were  it  possible  to  delineate  on  paper, 
all  those  particular  cases  and  circumstances  in  which  legislation  by 
the  general  legislature  would  be  necessary  and  leave  to  the  states 
all  the  other  powers,  I  imagine  no  gentleman  would  object  to  it. 
But  this  is  not  within  the  limits  of  human  capacity.  The  particular 
powers  which  are  found  necssary  to  be  given,  are  therefore  delega¬ 
ted  generally,  and  particular  and  minute  specification  is  left  to  the 
legislature. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  spoke  of  the  distinction  between  regulation  of 
police  and  legislation ;  but  so  low  he  could  not  be  heard.] 

When  the  honorable  member  objects  to  giving  the  general  go- 
ernment  jurisdiction  over  the  place  of  their  session,  does  he  mean 
that  it  should  be  under  the  control-  of  any  particular  state,  that  might 
at  a  critical  moment  seize  it!  I  should  have  thought  that  this  clause 
would  have  met  with  the  most  cordial  approbation.  As  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  state  in  which  it  may  be,  must  be  obtained,  and  as  it 
may  stipulate  the  terms  of  the  grant,  should  they  violate  the  partic¬ 
ular  stipulations,  it  would  be  an  usurpation  :  So  that  if  the  mem- 


406  DEBATES.  [Madison. 

bers  of  congress  were  to  be  guided  by  the  laws  of  their  country, 
none  of  those  dangers  could  arise. 

[Mr  Madison  made  several  other  remarks,  which  could  not  be 
heard.] 

Mr  HENRY  replied,  that  if  congress  -were  vested  with  supreme 
power  of  legislation,  paramount  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
states,  the  dangers  he  had  described  might  happen  ;  for  that  con¬ 
gress  would  not  be  confined  to  the  enumerated  powers.  This  con¬ 
struction  was  warranted,  in  this  opinion,  by  the  addition  of  the  word 
department  at  the  end  of  the  clause ;  and  that  they  could  make 
any  laws  which  they  might  think  necessary  to  execute  the  powers 
of  any  department,  or  officer,  of  the  government. 

Mr  PENDLETON — Mr  Chairman — This  clause  does  not  give 
congress  power  to  impede  the  operation  of  any  part  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  or  to  make  any  regulation  that  may  affect  the  interests  of  the 
citizens  of  the  union  at  large.  But  it  gives  them  power  over  the  lo¬ 
cal  police  of  the  place,  so  as  to  be  secured  from  any  interruption  in 
their  proceedings.  Notwithstanding  the  violent  attack  upon  it,  I 
believe,  Sir,  this  is  the  fair  construction  of  the  clause.  It  give# 
■them  power  of  exclusive  legislation  to  any  case  within  that  district. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  this?  What  is  it  opposed  to?  It  is  oppos¬ 
ed  to  the  general  powers  of  the  federal  legislature,  or  to  those  of 
the  state  legislatures?  I  understand  it  as  opposed  to  the  legislstivo 
power  of  that  state  where  it  shall  be. — What  then  is  the  power?  It 
is  that  congress  shall  exclusively  legislate  there,  in  order  to  preserve 
the  police  of  the  place,  and  their  own  personal  independence;  that 
they  may  not  be  overawed  or  insulted  ;  and  of  course  to  preserve 
them  in  opposition  to  any  attempt  by  the  state  where  it  shall  be. 
This  is  the  fair  construction.  Can  we  suppose,  that  in  order  to  ef¬ 
fect  these  salutary  ends,  congress  will  make  it  an  asylum  for  vil¬ 
lains  and  the  vilest  characters  from  all  parts  of  the  world?  Will  it 
not  degrade  their  own  dignity  to  make  it  a  sanctuary  for  villains?  I 
hope  that  no  man  that  will  ever  compose  that  congress,  will  associ¬ 
ate  with  the  most  profligate  characters. 

Why  oppose  this  power?  Suppose  they  were  contrary  to  the 
sense  of  their  constituents,  to  grant  exclusive  privileges  to  citizens 
residing  within  that  place  ;  the  effect  would  be  directly  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  what  he  says.  It  could  have  no  operation  without  the  limits 
of  that  district. — Were  congress  to  make  a  law  granting  them  an 
exclusive  privilege  of  trading  to  the  East  Indies,  it  could  have  no 
effect  the  moment  it  would  go  without  that  place.  For  their  exclu¬ 
sive  power  is  confined  to  that  district.  Were  they  to  pass  such  a 
law,  it  would  be  nugatory,  and  every  member  of  the  community  at 
large,  could  trade  to  the  East  Indies  as  well  as  the  citizens  of  tkal 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


*0? 

district.  This  exclusive  power  is  limited  to  that  place  solely,  for 
their  own  preservation,  which  all  gentlemen  allow  to  be  necessary. 

Will  you  pardon  me  when  I  observe,  that  their  construction  of 
the  preceding  clause,  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  natural,  or  war- 
tanted  by  the  words. 

They  say  that  the  state  governments  have  no  power  at  all  over 
the  militia.  The  power  of  the  general  government  to  provide  for 
tinning  and  organizing  the  militia,  is  to  introduce  an  uniform  system 
of  discipline  to  pervade  the  United  States  of  America.  But  the 
power  of  governing  the  militia,  so  far  as  it  is  in  congress,  extends 
only  to  such  parts  of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States.  When  not  in  their  service,  congress  has  no  power 
to  govern  them.  The  states  then  have  the  sole  government  of  them. 
And  though  congress  may  provide  for  arming  them,  and  prescribe 
the  mode  of  discipline,  yet  the  states  have  the  authority  of  training 
them  according  to  the  uniform  discipline  prescribed  by  congress. 
But  there  is  nothing  to  preclude  them  from  arming  and  disciplining 
them,  should  congress  neglect  to  do  it.  As  to  calling  the  militia  to 
execute  the  laws  of  the  union,  I  thjnk  the  fair  construction  is  directly 
opposite  to  what  the  honorable  member  says.  The  fourth  section 
of  the  fourth  article  contains  nothing  to  warrant  the  supposition, 
that  the  states  cannot  call  them  forth  to  suppress  domestic  insurrec¬ 
tions.  \Herc  he  read  the  section.']  All  the  restraint  here  contained, 
is,  that  congress  may  at  their  pleasure,  on  application  of  the  state 
legislature,  or  (in  vacation)  of  the  executive,  protect  each  of  the 
states  against  domestic  violence.  This  is  a  restraint  on  the  general 
government  not  to  interpose.  The  state  is  in  full  possession  of  the 
power  of  using  its  own  militia  to  protect  itself  against  domestic 
violence;  and  the  power  in  the  general  government  cannot  be  exer¬ 
cised,  or  interposed,  without  the-  application  of  the  state  itself. 
This  appears  to  me  to  be  the  obvious  and  fair  construction. 

With  respect  to  the  necessity  of  the  ten  miles  square  being  su-r 
nerseded  by  the  subsequent  clause,  which  gives  them  power  to  make 
all  laws  which  shall  he  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  exe¬ 
cution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this 
constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  de¬ 
partment  or  officer  thereof,  I  understand  that  clause  as  not  going  a 
single  step  beyond  the  delegated  powers.  What  can  it  act  upon? 
Some  power  given  by  this  constitution.  If  they  should  be  about  to 
pass  a  law  in  consequence  of  this  clause,  they  must  pursue  some  of 
the  delegated  powers;  but  can  by  no  means  depart  from  them,  or 
arrogate  any  new  powers.  For  the  plain  language  of  the  clause,  is 
to  give  them  power  to  pass  laws  in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  dele-, 
gated  powers. 


403 


DEBATES. 


[Mason- 


Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  gentlemen  say  there  is- 
no  new  power  given  by  this  clause.  Is  there  any  thing  in  this  con¬ 
stitution  which  secures  to  the  states  the  powers  which  are  said  to 
be  retained?  Will  powers  remain  to  the  states  which  are  not  ex¬ 
pressly  guarded  and  reserved?  I  will  suppose  a  case.  Gentlemen 
may  call  it  an  impossible  case,  and  suppose  that  congress  will  act 
with  wisdom  and  integrity.  Among  the  enumerated  powers,  con¬ 
gress  are  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  and 
to  pay  the  debts,  and  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare,  and  com¬ 
mon  defence;  and  by  that  clause  (so  often  called  the  sweeping 
clause)  they  are  to  make  all  laws  necessary  to- execute  those  laws. 
Now  suppose  oppressions  should  arise  under  this  government,  and 
any  writer  should  dare  to  stand  forth  and  expose  to  the  community 
at  large,  the  abuses  of  those  powers,  could  not  congress,  under 
the  idea  of  providing  for  the  general  welfare,  and  under  their  own 
construction,  say,  that  this  was  destroying  the  general  peace,  en¬ 
couraging  sedition,  and  poisoning  the  minds  of  the  people?  And 
could  they  not,  in  order  to  provide  against  this,  lay  a  dangerous  re¬ 
striction  on  the  press?  Might  they  not  even  bring  th4  trial  of  this 
restriction  within  the  ten  miles  square,  when  there  is  no  prohibition 
against  it?  Might  they  not  thus  destroy  the  trial  by  jury?  W'ould 
they  not  extend  their  implication?  It  appears  to  me  that  they  may 
and  will.  And  will  the  support  of  our  rights  depend  on  the  bounty 
of  men  whose  interest  it  may  be  to  oppress  us?  That  congress- 
should  have  power  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  union,  I 
grant.  But  I  wish  a  clause  in  the  constitution  with  respect  to  all 
powers  which  are  not  granted,  that  they  are  retained  by  the  states. 
Otherwise  the  power  of  providing  lor  the  general  welfare  may  be 
perverted  to  its  destruction. 

Many  gentlemen  whom  I  respect,  take  different  sides  of  this  ques¬ 
tion.  We  wish  this  amendment  to  be  introduced  to  remove  our  ap¬ 
prehensions.  There  was  a  clause  in  the  confederation  reserving  to 
the  states  respectively,  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  not  ex¬ 
pressly  delegated  to  the  United  States.  This  clause  has  never  been 
complained  of,  but  approved  by  all.  Why  not  then  have  a  similar 
clause  in  this  constitution,  in  which  it  is  the  more  indispensably 
necessary  than  in  the  confederation,  because  of  the  great  augmenta¬ 
tion  of  power  vested  in  the  former?  In  my  humble  apprehension, 
unless  there  be  some  such  clear  and  finite  expression,  this  clause 
now  under  consideration  will  go  to  any  thing  our  rulers  may  think 
proper.  Unless  there  be  some  express  declaration,  that  every  thing 
not  given  is  retained,  it  will  be  carried,  to  any  power  congress  may 
please. 


VIRGINIA. 


409 


Nicholas.] 

Mr  HENRY  moved  to  read  from  the  eighth  to  the  thirteenth  ar¬ 
ticle*  of  the  declaration  of  rights,  which  was  done. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS,  in  reply  to  the  gentlemen  opposed 
to  the  clause  under  debate,  went  over  the  same  grounds,  and  devel¬ 
oped  the  same  principles,  which  Mr  Pendleton  and  Mr  Madison 
had  done.  The  opposers  of  the  clause  which  gave  the  power  of 
providing  for  the  general  welfare,  supposed  its  dangers  to  result 
from  its  connection  with,  and  extension  of,  the  powers  granted  in 
the  other  clauses.  He  endeavored  to  shew  the  committee,  that  it 
only  empowered  congress  to  make  such  laws  as  would  be  necessary 
to  enable  them  to  pay  the  public  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common 
defence.  That  this  general  welfare  was  united,  not  to  the  general 
power  of  legislation,  but  to  the  particular  power  of  laying  and  col¬ 
lecting  taxes,  imposts,  and  excises,  for  the  purposes  of  paying  the 
debts  and  providing  for  the  common  defence.  That  is,  that  they 
could  raise  as  much  money  as  would  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for 
the  common  defence,  in  consequence  of  this  power.  The  clause 
which  was  affectedly  called  the  sweeping  clause,  contained  no  new 
grant  of  powrer.  To  illustrate  this  position,  he  observed,  that  if  it 
had  been  added  at  the  end  of  every  one  of  the  enumerated  powers, 
instead  of  beino-  inserted  at  the  end  of  all,  it  would  be  obvious  to 
any  one,  that  it  was  no  augmentation  of  power.  As,  for  instance, 
if  at  the  end  of  the  clause  granting  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes, 
it  had  been  added,  that  they  should  have  power  to  make  necessary 
and  proper  laws  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  who  could  suspect  it  to  be 
an  addition  of  power?  As  it  would  grant  no  new  power,  it  inserted 
at  the  end  of  each  clause,  it  could  not  when  subjoined  to  the  whole. 

He  then  proceeded  thus:  But,  says  he,  who  is  to  determine  the 
extent  of  such  powers'?  I  say,  the  same  power  which  in  all  well 
regulated  communities  determines  the  extent  of  legislative  powrers. 
If  they  exceed  these  powers,  the  judiciary  w ill  declare  it  void. 
If  not  the  people  will  have  a  right  to  declare  it  void.  Is  this  de¬ 
pending  on  any  man?  But,  says,  the  gentleman,  it  may  go  to  any 
thing.  It  may  destroy  the  trial  by  jury ;  and  they  may  say  it  is  ne¬ 
cessary  for  providing  lor  the  general  defence.  The  power  of  pro¬ 
viding  for  the  general  defence  only  extends  to  raise  any  sum  of 
money  they  may  think  necessary,  by  taxes,  imposts,  &c.  But, 
aays  he,  our  only  defence  against  oppressive  laws,  consists  in  tbo 
virtue  of  our  representatives.  This  was  misrepresented.  If  I  un¬ 
derstand  it  right,  no  new  power  can  be  exercised.  As  to  those 
which  are  actually  granted,  we  trust  to  the  fellow-feelings  of  our  re¬ 
presentatives,  and  if  we  are  deceived,  we  then  trust  to  altering  our 
government.  It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  we  can  confide  in 
their  discharging  their  powers  rightly,  from  the  peculiarity  of  their 


410 


DEBATES. 


[Heart 


situation,  and  connection  with  us.  If,  Sir,  the  powers  of  the  former 
congress  were  very  inconsiderable,  that  body  did  not  deserve  to 
have  great  powers. 

It  was  so  constructed  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  invest  it  with 
such.  But,  why  were  the  articles  of  the  bill  of  rights  read!  Let 
him  shew  us  that  those  rights  are  given  up  by  the  constitution.  Let 
him  prove  them  to  be  violated,  He  tells  us,  that  the  most  worth) 
characters  of  the  country  differ  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  bill  of  rights. 
It  is  a  simple  and  plain  proposition.  It  is  agreed  upon  by  all,  that 
the  people  have  all  power.  If  they  part  with  any  of  it,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  declare  that  they  retain  the  rest.  Liken  it  to  any  similar 
case.  If  I  have  one  thousand  acres  of  land,  and  I  grant  five  hundred 
acres  of  it,  must  I  declare  that  I  retain  the  other  five  hundred!  Do 
I  grant  the  whole  thousand  acres  when  I  grant  five  hundred,  unless 
I  declare  that  the  five  hundred  I  do  not  give,  belongs  to  me  still!  It 
is  so  in  this  case!  After  granting  some  powers,  the  rest  must  rest 
with  the  people.  1 

Gov.  RANDOLPH  observed,  that  he  had  some  objections  to  the 
clause.  He  was  persuaded,  that  the  construction  put  upon  it  by  tho 
gentlemen,  on  both  sides,  was  erroneous  ;  but  he  thought  any  con¬ 
struction  better  than  go  into  anarchy. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  still  thought  that  there  ought  to  be  some 
■express  declaration  in  the  constitution,  asserting  that  rights  not  gi¬ 
ven  to  the  general  government,  were  retained  by  the  states.  He 
apprehended  that  unless  this  was  done,  many  valuable  and  impor¬ 
tant  rights  would  be  concluded  to  be  given  up  by  implication.  All 
governments  were  drawn  from  the  people,  though  many  were  perver¬ 
ted  to  their  oppression.  The  government  of  Virginia,  he  remarked, 
was  drawn  from  the  people  ;  yet  there  were  certain  great  and  impor¬ 
tant  rights  which  the  people  by  their  bill  of  rights  declared  to  be 
paramount  to  the  power  of  the  legislature.  He  asked,  why  should 
it  not  be  so  in  this  constitution!  Was  it  because  we  were  more  sub¬ 
stantially  represented  in  it,  than  in  the  state  government?  If  in  tho 
state  government,  where  the  people  were  substantially  and  fully 
represented,  it  was  necessary  that  the  great  rights  of  human  nature 
should  he  secure  from  the  encroachments  of  the  legislature,  he  ask- 
*sd,  if  it  was  not  more  necessary  in  this  government,  where  they 
were  but  inadequately  represented?  He  declared,  that  aitful  so¬ 
phistry  and  evasions  could  not  satisfy  him.  He  could  see  no  clear 
.distinction  between  rights  relinquished  by  a  positive  grant,  and  lost 
Jby  implication.  Unless  there  were  a  bill  of  rights,  implication 
might  swallow  up  all  our  rights. 

Mr  HENRY — Mr  Chairman,  the  necessity  of  a  bill  of  rights  ap*- 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


411 


pears  tome  to  be  greater  in  this  government, "than  ever  it  was  in  any 
government,  before.  ]  observed  already,  that  the  sense  of  the  Eu¬ 
ropean  nations,  and  particularly  Great  Britain,  is  against  the  con¬ 
struction  of  rights  being  retained,  which  are  not  expressly  relin¬ 
quished.  I  repeat,  that  all  nations  have  adopted  this  construction— 
that  all  rights  not  expressly  and  unequivocally  reserved  to  the  peo¬ 
ple,  are  impliedly  and  incidentally  relinquished  to  rulers  ;  as  ne¬ 
cessarily  inseparable  from  the  delegated  powers.  It  is  so  in  Great 
Britain  ;  for  every  possible  right  which  is  not  reserved  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  by  some  express  provision  or  compact,  is  within  the  lung’s  pre¬ 
rogative.  It  is  so  in  that  county  which  is  said  to  be  in  such  full 
possession  of  freedom.  It  is  so  in  Spain,  Gehnany,  and  other  parts 
of  the  world.  Let  us  consider  the  sentiments  which  have  been  en¬ 
tertained  by  the  people  of  America  on  this  subject.  At  the  revolu¬ 
tion  it  must  be  admitted,  that  it  was  their  sense  to  put  down  those 
great  rights  which  ought  in  all  countries  to  be  held  inviolable  and 
-sacred.  Virginia  did  so,  we  all  remember.  She  made  a  compact 
to  reserve,  expressly,  certain  rights. 

When  fortified  with  full,  adequate  and  abundant,  representation, 
was  she  satisfied  with  that  representation!  No.  She  most  cau¬ 
tiously  and  guardedly  reserved  and  secure.l  those  invaluable,  inesti¬ 
mable  rights  and  privileges,  which  no  people,  inspired  with  the  least 
glow  of  the  patriotic  liberty,  ever  did  inspire  or  ever  can,  abandon. 
She  is  called  upon  now  to  abandon  them,  and  dissolve  that  compact 
which  secured  them  to  her.  She  is  called  upon  to  accede  to  anoth¬ 
er  compact  which  most  infallibly  supercedes  and  annihilates  her 
present  one.  Will  she  do  it!  .This  is  the  question.  If  you  intend 
to  reserve  your  unalienable  rights,  you  must  have  the  most  express 
stipulation.  For  if  implication  be  allowed,  you  are  ousted  of  those 
rights.  If  the  people  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  reserve  them 
they  will  be  supposed  to  be  given  up.  IIow  were  the  congressional 
rights  defined  when  the  people  of  America  united  by  a  confederacy 
to  defend  their  liberties  and  rights  against  the  tyrannical  attempts 
of  Great  Britain!  The  states  wrere  not  then  contented  with  implied 
■reservation.  No,  Mr  Chairman.  It  was  expressly  declared  in  our 
•confederation  that  every  right  was  retained  by  the  states  respective¬ 
ly,  which  was  not  given  up  to  the  government  of  the  United  tStates. 
But  there  is  no  such  thing  here.  You  therefore,  by  a  natural  and 
unavoidable  implication,  give  up  your  rights  to  the  general  govern¬ 
ment. 

Your  own  example  furnishes  an  argument  against  it.  If  you  give 
.up  these  powers,  without  a  hill  of  rights,  you  will  exhibit  the  most 
absurd  thing  to  mankind  that  ever  the  world  saw — a  government 
that  has  abandoned  ail  its  powers — the  powers  of  a  direct  taxation* 


412 


DEBATES. 


[Henbx  » 


the  sword  and  the  purse.  You  have  disposed  of  them  to  congress, 
without  a  bill  of  rights — without  check,  limitation,  or  control.  And 
still  you  have  checks  and  guards — still  you  keep  barriers — pointed 
where?  Pointed  againstyour  weakened,  prostrated,  enervated  state 
government!  You  have  a  bill  of  rights  to  defend  you  against  the 
state  government,  which  is  bereaved  of  all  power;  and  yet  you  have 
none  against  congress,  though  in  full  and  exclusive  possession  of 
all  power!  You  arm  yourselves  against  the  weak  and  defenceless, 
and  expose  yourselves  naked  to  the  armed  and  powerful.  Is  not 
this  a  conduct  of  unexampled  absurdity?  What  barriers  have  you 
to  oppose  to  this  most  strong  energetic  government?  To  that  go¬ 
vernment,  you  have  nothing  to  oppose.  All  your  defence  is  given 
up.  This  is  a  real  actual  defect..  It  must  strike  the  mind  of  every 
gentleman.  When  our  government  was  first  instituted  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  we  declared  the  common  law  of  England  to  be  in  force. 

That  system  of  law  which  has  been  admired,  a.nd  has  protected 
us  and  our  ancestors  is  excluded  by  that  system.  Added  to  this, 
we  adopted  a  bill  of  rights.  By  this  constitution,  some  of  the  best 
barriers  of  human  rights  are  thrown  away.  Is  there  not  an  addi¬ 
tional  reason  to  have  a  bill  of  rights?  By  the  ancient  common  law, 
the  trial  of  all  facts  is  decided  by  a  jury  of  impartial  men  from  the 
immediate  vicinage.  This  paper  speaks  of  different  juries  from  the 
common  law,  in  criminal  cases;  and  in  civil  controversies  excludes 
trial  by  jury  altogether, — There  is  therefore  more  occasion  for  the 
supplementary  check  of  a  bill  of  rights  now,  than  then.  Congress 
from  their  general  powers  may  fully  go  into  business  of  human  legis¬ 
lation.  They  may  legislate  in  criminal  cases  from  treason  to  the 
lowest  offence,  petty  larceny.  They  may  define  crimes  and  pre¬ 
scribe  punishments.  In  the  definition  of  crimes,  I  trust  they  will 
be  directed  by  what  wise  representatives  ought  to  be  governed  by. 
But  when  wre  come  to  punishments,  no  latitude  ought  to  be  left,  nor 
dependence  put  on  the  virtue  of  representatives.  What  says  our 
bill  of  rights?  “That  excessive  bail  ought  not  to  be  required,  nor 
excessive  fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflic¬ 
ted.”  Are  you  not  therefore  now  calling  on  those  gentlemen  who 
are  to  compose  congress,  to  prescribe  trials  and  define  punishments 
without  this  control?  Will  they  find  sentiments  there  similar  to 
this  bill  of  rights?  You  let  them  loose — you  do  more — you  depart 
from  the  genius  of  your  country.  That  paper  tells  you,  that  the 
trial  of  crimes  shall  be  by  jury,  and  held  in  the  state  where  the 
crime  shall  have  been  committed.  Under  this  extensive  provision, 
they  may  proceed  in  a  manner  extremely  dangerous  to  liberty — per¬ 
sons  accused  may  be  carried  from  one  extremity  of  the  state  to  ano» 


Henry.] 


VIRGIN  A. 


413 


ther,  and  be  tried,  not  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  vicinage,  acquain¬ 
ted  with  his  character,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  fact,  but  by  a 
jury  unacquainted  with  both,  and  who  may  be  biassed  against  him. 
Is  not  this  sufficient  to  alarm  men? — How  different  is  this  from  the 
immemorial  practice  of  your  British  ancestors,  and  your  own!  I 
need  not  tell  you,  that  by  the  common  law  a  number  of  hundredorB 
were  required  on  a  jury,  and  that  afterwards  it  was  sufficient  if 
the  jurors  came  from  the  same  county.  With  less  than  this,  the 
people  of  England  have  never  been  satisfied.  That  paper  ought 
to  have  declared  the  common  law  in  force. 

In  this  business  of  legislation,  your  members  of  congress  will 
loose  the  restriction  of  not  imposing  excessive  fines,  demanding  ex¬ 
cessive  bail,  and  inflicting  cruel  and  unusual  punishments.  These 
are  prohibited  by  your  declaration  of  rights.  What  has  distinguish¬ 
ed  our  ancestors'? — That  they  would  not  admit  of  tortures,  or  cruel 
and  barbarous  punishment.  But  congress  may  introduce  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  civil  law,  in  preference  to  that  of  the  common  law.  They 
may  introduce  the  practice  of  France,  Spain,  and  Germany — ot  tor¬ 
turing  to  extort  a  confession  of  the  crime.  They  will  say  that  they 
might  as  well  draw  examples  from' those  countries  as  from  Great 
Britain,  and  they  will  tell  you,  that  there  is  such  a  necessity  of 
strenghtening  the  arm  of  government,  that  they  must  have  a  crimi¬ 
nal  equity,  and  extort  confession  by  torture,  in  order  to  punish  with 
still  more  relentless  severity.  We  are  then  lost  and  undone.  And 
can  any  man  think  it  troublesome,  when  we  can  by  a  small  interfer¬ 
ence  prevent  our  rights  from  being  lost? — If  you  will,  like  the  Vir¬ 
ginian  government,  give  them  knowledge  of  the  extent  of  the  rights 
retained  by  the  people,  and  the  powers  themselves,  they  will,  if  they 
be  honest  men,  thank  you  for  it.  Will  they  not  wish  to  go  on  sure 
grounds? — But  if  you  leave  them  otherwise,  they  will  not  know 
how  to  proceed  ;  and  being  in  a  state  of  uncertainty,  they  will  as- 
sumerather  than  give  up  powers  by  implication. 

A  bill  of  rights  may  be  summed  up  in  a  few  words.  What  do 
they  tell  us? — That  our  rights  are  reserved.  W’hy  not  say  so?  Is 
it  because  it  will  consume  too  much  paper?  Gentlemen’s  reason¬ 
ing  against  a  bill  of  rights,  do  rot  satisfy  me.  Without  saying 
which  has  the  light  side,  it  remains  doubtful.  A  bill  of  rights  is  a 
favorite  thing  with  the  Virginians,  and  the  people  of  the  other  states 
likewise.  It  may  be  their  prejudice,  but  the  government  ought  to 
suit  their  geniuses,  otherrwise  its  operation  will  be  unhappy.  A  bill 
of  rights,  even  if  it3  necessity  be  doubtful,  will  exclude  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  dispute  ;  and  with  great  submission,  1  think  the  best  way 
Is  to  have  no  dispute.  In  the  present  constitution,  they  are  restrained 


414 


DEBATES. 


HENfctV 


from  issuing  general  warrants  to  search  suspected  pi  ace3,  or  seizes 
persons  not  named,  without  evidence  of  the  commission  of  a  fact,  &c. 
There  was  certainly  some  celestial  influence  governing  those  whir 
deliberated  on  that  constitution. — For  they  have  with  the  most  cau¬ 
tious  and  enlightened  circumspection,  guarded  those  indefeasible 
rights,  which  ought  ever  to  be  held  sacred.  The  officers  of  congress 
may  come  upon  you,  fortified  with  all  the  terrors  of  paramount  fed¬ 
eral  authority.  Excisemen  may  come  in  multitudes. — For  the  lim¬ 
itation  of  their  numbers  no  man  knows.  They  may,  unless  the  gen¬ 
eral  government  be  restrained  by  a  bill  of  rights,  or  some  similar 
restriction,  go  into  your  cellars  and  rooms,  and  search,  ransack  and 
measure,  every  thing  you  eat,  drink  and  wear.  They  ought  to  be 
restrained  within  proper  bounds.  4  With  respect  to  the  freedom  of 
the  press,  I  need  say  nothing;  for  it  is  hoped  that  the  gentlemenwho 
shail  composec  ongress,  will  take  care  as  little  as  possible  to  infringe 
the  rights  of  human  nature.  This  will  result  from  Iheir  integrity. 
They  should  from  prudence,  abstain  from  violating  the  rights  of  their 
constituents.  rIhey  are  not  however  expressly  restrained.  But 
whether  they  will  intermeddle  with  that  palladium  of  our  liberties 
or  net,  I  leave  yoTi  to  determine. 

Mr  GRAYSON  thought  it  questionable,  whether  rights  not  giv¬ 
en  up  were  reserved.  A  majority  of  the  states,  he  observed,  had  ex¬ 
pressly  reserved  certain  important  rights  by  bills  of  rights,  and  that 
in  the  confederation  there  was  a  clause,  declaring  expressly,  that 
every  power  and  right  not  given  up,  was  retained  by  the  states.  It 
was  the  general  sense  of  America,  that  such  a  clause  was  necessary; 
otherwise  why  did  they  introduce  a  clause  which  was  totally  unne¬ 
cessary?  It  had  been  insisted,  he  said,  in  many  parts  of  America, 
that  a  bill  of  rights,  was  only  necessary  between  a  prince  and  peo¬ 
ple,  and  not  in  such  a  government  as  this,  which  was  a  compact  be¬ 
tween  the  people  themselves.  This  did  not  satisfy  his  mind  ;  for 
so  extensive  was  the  power  of  legislation,  in  his  estimation,  that  he 
doubted,  whether  when  it  was  once  given  up ,any  thing  was  retained. 
He  further  remarked,  that  there  were  some  negative  clauses  in  the 
constitution,  which  refuted  the  doctrine  contended  for  by  the  other 
siue  :  for  instance,  the  second  clause  of  the  ninth  section,  of  the  first 
article,  provided,  that  “  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  inva¬ 
sion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it.” — And  by  the  last  clause  of 
the  same  section  44  no  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States.”  Now  if  these  restrictions  had  not  been  here  inserted, 
he  asked,  whethe^congress  would  not  most  clearly  have  had  a  right 
So  suspend  that  great  and  valuable  right, and  to  grant  titles  of  nobil- 


VIRGINIA. 


41 $ 


Nicholas.] 

hy?  When,  in  addition  to  these  considerations,  he  saw  they  had  an 
indefinite  power  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare,  he  thought  there 
were  great  reasons  to  apprehend  great  dangers.  He  thought  there¬ 
fore,  that  there  ought  to  be  a  bill  of  rights. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS,  in  answer  to  the  two  gentlemen 
last  up,  observed,  that  though  there  was  a  declaration  of  rights  in 
the  government  of  Virginia,  it  was  no  conclusive  reason  that  there 
should  be  one  in  this  constitution.  For,  if  it  was  unnecessary  in  the 
former,  its  omission  in  the  latter  could  be  no  defect.  They  oughi 
therefore  to  prove,  that  it  was  essentially  necessary  to  be  inserted 
in  the  constitution  of  Virginia:  that  there  were  five  or  six  states  in 
the  union,  which  had  no  bill  of  rights,  separately  and  distinctly  as 
such.  But  they  annexed  the  substance  of  a  bill  of  rights  of  their 
respective  constitutions.  These  states,  he  further  observed,  were 
ns  free  as  this  state,  and  their  liberties  as  secure  as  ours.  If  so, 
gentlemen’s  arguments  from  the  precedent  w£re  not  good.  In  Vir¬ 
ginia,  all  powers  were  given  to  the  government  without  any  excep¬ 
tion.  It  was  different  in  the  general  government,  to  which  certain 
special  powers  were  delegated  for  certain  purposes.  He  asked, 
which  was  the  more  safe?  Was  it  safer  to  grant  general  powers, 
than  certain  limited  powers?  This  much  as  to  the  theory,  continued 
he.  What  is  the  practice  of  this  invaluable  government?  Have 
your  citizens  been  bound  by  it?  They  have  not,  Sir.  You  have 
violated  that  maxim,  “that  no  man  shall  be  condemned  without  a 
fair  trial.”  That  man  who  was  killed,  not  secundum  artem ,  was  de¬ 
prived  of  his  life,  without  the  benefit  of  law,  and  in  express  viola¬ 
tion  of  this  declaration  of  rights,  which  they  confide  in  so  much. 
But,  Sir,  this  bill  of  rights  was  no  security.  It  is  but  a  paper  check. 
It  has  been  violated  in  many  other  instances.  Therefore  from 
theory  and  practice,  it  may  be  concluded,  that  this  government  with 
epecial  powers,  without  any  express  exceptions,  is  better  than  a 
government  with  general  powers,  and  special  exceptions.  But  the 
practice  of  England  is  against  us.  The  rights  there  reserved  to  the 
people,  are  to  limit  and  check  the  king’s  prerogative.  It  is  easier 
to  enumerate  the  exceptions  to  his  prerogative,  than  to  mention  all 
the  cases  to  which  it  extends.  Besides,  these  reservations  being 
only  formed  in  acts  of  the  legislature,  may  be  altered  by  the  repro 
sentatives  of  the  people,  when  they  think  proper.  No  comparison 
can  be  made  of  this,  with  the  other  governments  he  mentioned. 
There  is  no  stipulation  between  the  king  and  people.  The  former 
is  possessed  of  absolute  unlimited  authority. 

But,  Sir,  this  constitution  is  defective,  because  the  common  law 
is  not  declared  to  be  in  force.  What  would  have  been  the  conse¬ 
quences  if  it  had?  It  would  be  immutable.  But  new  it  can  ba- 


416 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas. 


changed  or  modified  as  the  legisaltive  body  may  find  necessary  for 
the  community.  But  the  common  law  is  not  excluded.  There  is 
nothing  in  that  paper  to  warrant  the  assertion.  As  to  the  exclusion 
of  a  jury  from  the  vicinage,  he  has  mistaken  the  fact.  The  legisla¬ 
ture  may  direct  a  jury  to  come  from  the  vicinage.  But  the  gentle¬ 
man  says,  that  by  this  constitution,  they  have  power  to  make  laws 
to  define  crimes,  and  prescribe  punishments;  and  that  consequently 
we  are  not  free  from  torture.  Treason  against  the  United  States  is 
defined  in  the  constitution,  and  the  forfeiture  limited  to  the  life  of 
the  person  attainted.  Congress  have  power  to  define  and  punish 
piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and  offences 
against  the  laws  of  nations;  but  they  cannot  define  or  prescribe  the 
punishment  of  any  other  crime  whatever,  without  violating  the  con¬ 
stitution.  If  we  had  no  security  against  torture,  but  our  declaration 
of  rights,  we  might  be  tortured  to-morrow;  for  it  has  been  repeatedly 
infringed  and  disregarded.  A  bill  of  rights  is  only  an  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  the  pre-existing  claim  to  rights  in  the  people.  They  belong 
to  us,  as  much  as  if  they  had  been  inserted  in  the  constitution.  But 
it  is  said,  that  if  it  be  doubtful,  the  possibility  of  dispute  ought  to 
be  precluded.  Admitting  it  was  proper  for  the  convention  to  have 
inserted  a  bill  of  rights,  it  is  not  proper  here  to  propose  it,  as  the 
condition  of  our  accession  to  the  union.  Would  you  reject  this 
government  for  its  omission,  dissolve  the  union,  and  bring  miseries 
on  yourselves  and  posterity!  I  hope  the  gentleman  does  not  oppose 
it  on  this  ground  solely.  Is  there  another  reason!  He  said,  that  it 
is  not  only  the  general  wish  of  this  state,  but  all  the  states,  to  hava 

a  bill  of  rights.  If  it  be  so,  where  is  the  difficulty  of  having  this 

$ 

done  by  way  of  subsequent  amendments!  We  shall  find  the  other 
states  willing  to  accord  with  their  own  favorite  wish.  The  gentle¬ 
man  last  up  says,  that  the  power  of  legislation  includes  every  thing. 
A  general  power  of  legislation  does.  But  this  is  a  special  power 
of  legislation.  Therefore  it  does  not  contain  that  plenitude  of  power 
which  he  imagines.  They  cannot  legislate  in  any  case  but  those 
particularly  enumerated.  No  gentleman,  who  is  a  friend  to  the 
government,  ought  to  withhold  his  assent  from  it  for  this  reason. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  replied,  that  the  worthy  gentleman  was 
mistaken  in  his  assertion,  that  the  bill  of  rights  did  not  prohibit  tor¬ 
ture.  For,  that  one  clause  expressly  provided,  that  no  man  can 
give  evidence  against  himself,  and  that  the  worthy  gentleman  must 
know,  that  in  those  countries  where  torture  is  used,  evidence  was  ex¬ 
torted  from  the  criminal  himself.  Another  clause  of  the  bill  of  rights 
provided,  that  no  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  shall  be  inflicted; 
therefore  torture  was  included  in  the  prohibition. 


DEBATES. 


417 


Madison.] 

Mr  NICHOLAS  acknowledged  the  bill  of  rights  to  contain  that 
prohibition,  and  that  the  gentleman  was  right  with  respect  to  tho 
practice  of  extorting  confession  from  the  criminal  in  those  countries, 
where  torture  is  used;  but  still  he  saw  no  security  arising  from  tho 
bill  of  rights  as  separate  from  the  constitution,  for  that  it  had  been 
frequently  violated  with  impunity. 

Tuesday ,  the  15 ih  of  June ,  1788. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON — Mr  Chairman,  this  is  a  fatal  section, 
which  has  created  more  dangers  than  any  other.  The  first  clause 
allows  the  importation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years.  Under  the  royal 
government,  this  evil  was  looked  upon  as  a  great  oppression,  and 
many  attempts  were  made  to  prevent  it;  but  the  interest  of  the  Afri¬ 
can  merchants  prevented  its  prohibition.  No  sooner  did  the  revo¬ 
lution  take  place  than  it  was  thought  of.  It  was  one  of  the  great 
causes  of  our  separation  from  Great  Britain.  Its’exclusion  has  been 
a  principal  object  of  this  state,  and  most  of  the  states  in  the  union. 
The  augmentation  of  slaves,  weakens  the  states  ;  and  such  a  trade 
is  diabolical  in  itself,  and  disgraceful  to  mankind.  Yet,  by  this 
constitution,  it  is  continued  for  twbnty  years.  As  much  as  I  value 
an  union  of  all  the.states,  I  would  not  admit  the  southern  states  into 
the  union,  unless  they  agree  to  the  discontinuance  of  this  disgrace¬ 
ful  trade,  because  it  would  bring  weakness  and  not  strength  to  the 
union.  And  though  this  infamous  traffic  be  continued,  we  have  no 
fiecurity  for  the  property  of  that  kind  which  we  have  already.  There 
is  no  clause  in  this  constitution  to  secure  it,  for  they  may  lay  such 
tax  as  will  amount  to  manumission.  And  should  the  government 
be  amended,  still  this  detestable  kind  of  commerce  cannot  be  dis¬ 
continued  till  after  the  expiration  of  twenty  years.  For  the  fifth 
article  which  provides  foramendmenls,  expressly  excepts  this  clause. 

1  have  ever  looked  upon  this  as  a  most  disgraceful  thing  to  America. 

I  cannot  express  my  detestation  of  it.  Yet  they  have  not  secured 
us  the  property  of  the  slaves  we  have  already.  So  that  “they  have 
done  what  they  ought  not  to  have  done,  and  have  left  undone  what 
they  ought  to  have  done.” 

Mr  MADISON— -Mr  Chairman,  I  should  conceive  this  clause  to 
be  impolitic,  if  it  were  one  of  those  things  which  could  be  excluded 
without  encountering  greater  evils.  The  southern  states  would  not 
have  entered  into  the  union  of  America,  without  the  temporary  per¬ 
mission  of  that  trade.  And  if  they  were  excluded  from  the  union, 
the  consequences  might  be  dreadful  to  them  and  to  us.  We  are 
not  in  a  worse  situation  than  before.  That  traffic  is  prohibited  by 

vol.  3  27 


418 


VIRGINIA 


[Mabisoj^ 


our  laws,  and  we  may  continue  the  prohibition.1  The  union  in  ge¬ 
neral  is  not  in  a  worse  situation.  Under  the  articles  of  confedera¬ 
tion,  it  might  be  continued  forever  :  but  by  this  clause  an  end  may 
be  put  to  it  after  twenty  years.  There  is,  therefore,  an  amelioration 
of  our  circumstances.  A  tax  may  be  laid  in  the  meantime,  but  it  is 
limited,  otherwise  congress  might  lay  such  a  tax  as  would  amount, 
to  a  prohibition.  From  the  mode  of  representation  and  taxation, 
congress  cannot  lay  such  a  tax  on  slaves  as  will  amount  to  manu¬ 
mission.  Another  clause  secures  us  that  property  which  we  now 
possess.  At  present,  if  any  slave  elopes  to  any  of  those  states 
where  slaves  are  tree,  he  becomes  emancipated  by  their  laws.  For 
the  laws  of  the  states  are  uncharitable  to  one  another  in  this  respect. 
But  in  this  constitution,  “no  person  held  to  service,  or  labor,  in  one 
state,  under  the, laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such 
service  or  labor;  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to 
whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.”  This  clause  was  ex¬ 
pressly  inserted  to  enable  owners  of  slaves  to  reclaim  them. 

This  is  a  better  security  than  any  that  now  exists.  No  power  is 
given  to  the  general  government  to  interpose  with  respect  to  the  pro¬ 
perty  in  slaves  now  held  by  the  states.  The  taxation  of  this  state 
being  equal  only  to  its  representation,  such  a  tax  cannot  be  laid  as 
-  he  supposes.  They  cannot  prevent  the  importation  oi  slaves 
for  twenty  years  ;  but  after  that  period  they  can.  The  gentlemen 
from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  argued  in  this  manner:  “We  have 
now  liberty  to  import  this  species  of  property,  and  much  of  the  pro¬ 
perty  now  possessed,  had  been  pnrchased,  or  otherwise  acquired,  in 
contemplation  of  improving  it  by  the  assistance  of  imported  slaves. 
What  would  be  the  consequence  of  hindering  us  from  if?  The 
slaves  of  Virginia  would  rise  in  value,  and  we  would  be  obliged  to 
go  to  your  markets.  I  need  not  expiate  on  this  subject.  Great  as 
the  evil  js,  a  dismemberment  of  the  union,  would  be  worse.  If  those 
states  should  disunite  from  the  other  states,  for  not  indulging  them 
in  the  temporary  continuance  of  this  traffic,  they  might  solicit  and 
obtain  aid  from  foreign  powers. 

Mr  TYLER  warmly  enlarged  on  the  impolicy,  iniquity,  and  dis¬ 
gracefulness  of  this  wicked  traffic.  He  thought  the  reasons  urged 
by  gentlemen  jn  defence  of  it,  were  inconclusive,  and  ill  founded. 
It  was  one  cause  of  the  complaints  against  British  tyranny,  that  this 
trade  was  permitted.  The  revolution  had  put  a  period  to  it,  but 
now  it  was  to  be  revived.  He  thought  nothing  could  justify  it. 
his  temporary  restriction  on  coligress  militated,  in  his  opinion. 


Madison.] 


DEBATES. 


419 


against  the' arguments  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  that  what  was 
not  given  up,  was  retained  by  the  states;  for  that  if  this  restriction 
had  not  been  inserted,  congress  could  have  prohibited  the  African 
trade.  .  The  power  of  prohibiting  it  was  not  expressly  delegated  to 
them;  yet  they  would  have  had  it  by  implication,  if  this  restraint 
had  not  been  provided.  This  seemed  to  him  to  demonstrate  most 
clearly  the  necessity  of  restraining  them,  by  a  bill  of  rights,  from  in¬ 
fringing  our  unalienable  rights.  It  was  immateiial  whether  the 
bill -of  rights  was. by  itself,  or  included  in  the  constitution.  But  he 
contended  for  it  one  way  or  the  other.  It  would  be  justified  by  our 
own  example,  and  that  of  England.  His  earnest  desire  was,  that 
it  should  be  handed  doAvn  to  posterity  that  he  had  opposed  this 
wicked  clause.  He  then  adverted  to  the  clauses  which  enabled 
congress,  -to  legislate  exclusively  in  the  ten  miles  square,  and  other 
places  purchased  for  forts,  magazines,  &c.  To  provide  for  the  ge¬ 
neral  welfare,  to  raise  a  standing  army,  and  to  make  any  law  that 
may  be  necessary  to  carry  their  laws  into  execution-.  From  the 
combined  operation  of  these  unlimited  powers  he  dreaded  the  most 
fatal  consequences.  If  any  acts  of  violence  should  be  committed' 
on  persons  or  property,  the  perpetrators  of  such  acts  might  take 
refuge  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  ten  miles  square,  and  the  strongholds. 
They  would  thus  escape  with  impunity,  as  the  states  had  no  power 
to  punish  them.  He  called  to  the  recollection  of  the  committee  the 
history  of  the  Athenian,  who  from  small  beginnings,-  had  enslaved 
his  country.  He  begged  them  to  remember,  that  Csesar,  who  pros, 
trated  the  liberties  of  his  country,  did  not  possess  a  powerful  army 
at  first.  Suppose,  says  he,  that  the  time  should  come,  that  a  king 
should  be  proposed  by  congress.  'Will  they  not  be  able,  by  the 
sweeping  clause  to  call  in  foreign  assistance,  and  raise  troops,  and 
do  whatever  they  think  proper  to  carry  this  proposition  into  effect! 
He  then  concluded,  that  unless  this  clause  were  expunged,  he  would 
vote  against  the  constitution. 

Mr  MADISON  was  surprised,  that  any  gentleman  should  return 
to  the  clauses  which  had  already  been  discussed.  He  begged  the 
gentleman  to  read  the  clauses,  which  gave  the  powbr  of  exclusive 
legislation,  and  he  might  see  that  nothing  could  be  done  without  tfie 
consent  of  the  states.  With  respect  to  the  supposed  operation  of 
what  was  denominated  the  sweeping  clause,  the  gentleman,  he  said, 
was  mistaken  ;  for  it  only  extended  to  the  enumerated  powers. 
Should  congress  attempt  to  extend  it  to  any  power  not  enumerated, 
it  would  not  be  warranted  by  the  clause.  As  to  the  restriction  in 
the  clause  under  consideration,  it  was  a  restraint  on  the  exercise  of 
a  power  expressly  delegated  to  congress,  namely,  that  of  regulating 
commerce  with  foreign  nations, 


490 


DEBATES 


[Nicholas* 


Mr  HENRY  insisted,  that  the  insertion  of  these  restrictions  on 
congress,  was  a  plain  demonstration,  that  congress  could  exercise 
powers  by  implication.  The  gentleman  had  admitted  that  congress 
could  have  interdicted  the  African  trade,  were  it  not  foi*  this  restric¬ 
tion.  If  so,  the  power  not  having  been  expressly  delegated,  must 
be  obtained  by  implication.  He  demanded,  where  then  was  their 
doctrine  of  reserved  rights'?  He  wished  for  negative  clauses  to  pre¬ 
vent  them  from  assuming  any  powers  hut  those  expressly  given.  Ho 
asked,  why  it  was  omitted  to  secure  us  that  property  in  slaves,  which 
he  held  now?  He  fea/ed  its  omission  was  done  with  design.  They 
might  lay  such  heavy  taxes  on  slaves,  as  would  amount  to  emanci¬ 
pation  ;  and  then  the  southern  states  would  be  the  only  sufferers. 
His  opinion  was  confirmed  by  the  mode  of  levying  money.  Con¬ 
gress,  he  observed,  had  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  impost,  and 
excises.  Impost  (or  duties)  and  excises,  were  to  be  uniform.  But 
this  uniformity  did  not  extend  to  taxes.  This  might  compel  the 
southern  states  to  liberate  their  negroes.  He  wished  this  property 
therefore  to  be  guarded.  He  considered  the  clause  which  had  been 
adduced  by  the  gentleman  as  a  security  for  this  property,  as  no  se~ 
curity  at  all.  It  was  no  more  than  this — that  a  runaway  negro  could 
be  taken  up  in  Maryland  or  New  York.  This  could  not  prevent 
congress  from  interfering  with  that-property  by  laying  a  grievous 
and  enormous  tax  on  it,  so  as  to  compel  owners  to  emancipate  their 
slaves  rather  then  pay  the  tax.  He  apprehended  it  would  be  pro** 
ductive  of  much  stock-jobbing,  and  that  they  would  play  into  one 
another’s  hands  in  such  a  manner  as  that  this  property  would  be  lost 
to  the  country. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  wondered  that  gentlemen  who  were 
ngaiRat  slavery,  would  be  opposed  to  this  clause;  as  after  that  pe¬ 
riod  the  slave  trade  would  be  done  away.  He  asked,  if  gentlemen 
did  not  see  the  inconsistency  of.their  arguments?  They  object,  says 
he,  to  the  constitution,  because  the  slave  trade  is  laid  open  for  twenty 
odd  years;  and  yet  they  tell  you,  that  by  some  latent  operation  of  it, 
the  slaves  who  are  so  now,  will  be  manumitted.  At  the  same  mo¬ 
ment  it  is  opposed  for  being  promotive  and  destructive  of  slavery. 
He  contended  that  it  was  advantageous  to  Virginia,  that  it  should 
be  in  the  power  of  congress  to  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves 
after  twenty  years,  as  it  would  then  put  a  period  to  the  evil  com¬ 
plained  of. 

As  the  southern  states  Would  net  confederate  without  this  clause, 
ho  asked,  if  gentlemen  would  rather  dissolve  the  confederacy  than 
to  suffer  this  temporary  inconvenience,  admitting  it  to  be  such? 
Virginia  might  continue  the  prohibition  of  such  importation  during 
the  ki  termed  iate  period,  and  would  be  benefitted  by  it,  as  a  tax  of 


Henrt.] 


VIRGINIA. 


421 


ten  dollars,  on  each  slave  might  be  laid,  of  which  she  would  receive 
a  share.  He  endeavored  to,  obviate  the  objection  of  gentlemen, 
that  the  restriction  on  congress  was  a  proof  that  they  would  have 
power  given  not  given  them,  by  remarking,  that  they  would  only 
have  had  a  general  superintendency  of  trade,  if  the  restriction  had 
not  been  inserted.  But  the  southern  states  insisted  on  this  exception 
to  that  general  superintendency  for  twenty  years.  It  could  not  there¬ 
fore  have  been  a  power  by  implication,  as  the  restriction  was  an  ex¬ 
ception  from  a  delegated  power.  The  taxes  could  not,  as  had  been 
suggested,  be  laid  so  high  on  negroes  as  to  amount  to  emancipation; 
because  taxation  and  representation  were  fixed  according  to  the  cen¬ 
sus  established  in  the  constitution.  The  exception  of  taxes,  from 
the  uniformity  annexed  to  duties  and  excises,  could  not  have  the  op¬ 
eration  contended  for  by  the  gentleman  ;  because  other  clauses  had 
clearly  and  postively  fixed  the  census.  Had  taxes  been  uniform,  it 
would  have  been  universally  objected  to,  for  no  one  object  could  be 
selected  without  involving  great  inconveniences  and  oppressions. 
But,  says  Mr  Nicholas,  is  it  from  the  general  government  we  are  to 
fear  emancipation?  Gentlemen  will  recollect  what  1  said  in  another 
house,  and  what  other  gentlemen  have  said  that  advocated  emanci¬ 
pation.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  clause  is  a  great  security  for  our 
slave  tax.  1  can  tell  the  committee,  that  the  people  of  our  country 
are  reduced  to  beggary  by  the  taxes  on  negroes.  Had  this  constitu¬ 
tion  been  adopted,  it  would  not  have  been  the  case.  The  taxes  were 
laid  on  all  our  negroes.  By  this  system  two-fifths  are  exempted. 
He  then  added,  that  he  had  imagined  gentlemen  would  support  here 
-what  they  opposed  in  another  place. 

Mr  HENRY  replied,  that  though  the  proportion  of  each  was  to 
be  fixed  by  the  census,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  only  were  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  enumeration,  yet  the  proportion  of  Virginia  being  once 
fixed,  might  be  laid  on  blacks  and  blacks  qnly.  For  the  mode  of 
raising  the  proportion  of  each  state,  being  to  be  directed  by  congress, 
they  might  make  slaves  thejsole  object  to  raise  it  of.  Personalities  he 
wished  to  take  leave  of:  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question, 
which  was  solely  whether  that  paper  was  wrong  or  not. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  replied,  that  negroes  must  be  considered  as  per¬ 
sons  or  property.  If,  as  property,  the  proportion  of  taxes  to  be  laid 
on  them  was  fixed  in  the  constitution.  If  he  apprehended  a  poll 
tax  on  negroes,  the  constitution  had  prevented  it.  For,  by  the  cen¬ 
sus,  where  a  wThite  man  paid  ten  shillings,  a  negro  paid  but  six 
shillings.  For  the  exemption  of  two-fifths  of  them  reduced  it  to 
that  proportion. 

The  second,  third  and  fourth  clauses,  were  then  read. 


422 


DEBATES. 


[Madison 


Mr  GEORGE  MASON  said,  that  gentlemen  might  think  them¬ 
selves  secured  by  the  restriction  in  the  fourth  clause,  that  no  capita¬ 
tion  or  other  direct  tax  should  be  laid,  but  in  proportion  to  the  cen¬ 
sus  before  directed  to  be  taken.  But  that  when  maturely  considered 
it  would  be  found  to  be  no  security  whatsoever.  It  was  nothing  but 
a  direct  assertion,  or  mere  confirmation  of  the  clause  which  fixed  the 
ratio  of  taxes  and  representation.  It  only  meant  that  the  'quantum 
to  be  raised  of  each  state  should  be  in  proportion  to  their  numbers- 
in  the  manner  therein  directed.  But  the  general  government  was 
not  precluded  from  laying  the  proportion  Of  any  particular  state  on 
any  one  species  of  properly  they -might  think  proper. 

For  instance,  if  five  hundred  thousand  dollar's  were  to  be  raised, 
they  might  lay  the  whole  of  the  proportion,  of  the  southern  states  on 
the  blacks,  or  any  one  species  of  property:  so  that  by  layingHaxes' 
too  heavily  on  slaves,  they  might  totally  annihilate  that  -kind  of 
property.  No  redl  security' could  arise  from  the  clause  which  pro¬ 
vides,  that  persons  held  to  labour  in  one  state,  escaping  into  an¬ 
other.- shall  be  delivered  up.  This  only  meant,  that  runaway  slaves 
should  not  be  protected  in  other  states.  As  to  the  exclusion  of  ex 
post-  faisio  laws,  it  could  not  hn  said  to  create  any  security  in  this 
case.  For  laying  a  tax  on  slaves  would  not  be  ex  post  facto. 

Mr.  MADISON  replied,  that*even  the  southern  states,  who  were 
most  affected,  were  perfectly  satisfied  with  this  provision,  and 
dreaded  no  danger  to  the  property  they  now  hqld.  It  appeared  to 
him,  that  the  general  government  would  not  intermeddle  with  that 
property  for  twenty  years,  but  to  lay  a  tax  on  every  slave  imported, 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars;  and  that  after  the  expiration  of  that  pe¬ 
riod,  they  might  prohibit  the  traffic  altogether.  The  census  in  the 
constitution  was  intended  to  introduce  equality  in  the  burdehs  to  be 
laid  on  the  community.  No  gentleman  objected  to  laying  duties, 
imposts,  and  excises,  uniformly.  Buf  ifrffformity  of  taxes  would  be 
subversive  to  the^principles  of  equality:  for  that  it  was  not  possible 
to  select  any  article  which  would  be  easy  for  one  state,  but  what 
would  be  heavy  for  another.  That  the  proportion  of  each  state  be¬ 
ing  ascertained,  it  would  be  raised  by  the  general  government  in 
the  most  convenient  manner  for  the  people,  and  not  by  the  selection 
of  any  one  particular' object.  That  there  must  be  some  degree  of 
confidence  put  in  agents,  or  else  we  must  reject  a  state  of  civil  so¬ 
ciety  altogether.  Another  great  security  to  this  property,  which 
lie  mentioned,  was,  that  five  states  were  greatly  interested  in  that 
species  ol  property;  and  there  were  other  states  which  had  some 
slaves,  and  had  made  no  attempt,  or  taken  any  step  to  take  them 
from  the  people.  There  were  a  few  slaves  in  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Connecticut:  these  states  would,  probably,  oppose  any 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


423 


attempts  to  annihilate  this  species  of  property.  He  concluded,  by 
observing,  that  he  would  be  glad  to  leave  the  decision  of  this  to  the 
committee. 

The  fifth  and  sixth  clauses  were  then  read. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON  apprehended  the  loose  expression  of 
publication  from  time  to  time,”  was  applicable  to  any  time.  It 
was  equally  applicable  to  monthly  and  septennial  periods.  It  might 
be  extended  ever  so  much.  The  reasons  urged  in  favour  of  this 
ambiguous  expression,  was,  that  there  might  be  some  matters  which 
require  secrecy.  In  matters  relative  to  military  operations,  and 
foreign  negotiations,  secrecy  was  necessary  sometimes.  But  he  did 
not  conceive  that  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  public  money 
ought  ever  to  be  concealed.  The  people,  he  affirmed,  had  a  right 
to  know  the  expenditures  of  their  moQ-ey.  But  that  this  expression 
was  so  loose,  it  might  [he  concealed  forever  from  them,  and  might 
afford  opportunities  of  misapplying  the  public  rhoney,  and  sheltering 
those  who- did  it.  He  concluded  it  to  be  as  exceptionable  as  any 
clause,  in  so  few  words,  could  be. 

Mr.  LEE  (of  VfestmoFeland)  thought  such  trivial  argument  as 
that  just  used  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  would  have  no  weight 
with  the  committee.  He  conceived  the  expression  to  be  sufficiently 

r  *  v 

explicit  and  satisfactory.  It  must  be  supposed  to  mean,  in  the  com¬ 
mon  acceptation  of  language,  short,,  convenient  periods.  It  was  as 
well  as  if  it  had  said  one  year,  or  a  shorter  temp.  Those  who  would 
neglect  this  provision,  would  disobey  the  most  pointed  directions. 
As  the  assembly  was  to  meet  next  wdek,  he  hoped  gentlemen  would 
confine  themselves  to  the  investigation  of  the  principal  parts  of  the 
constitution. 

L  /  * 

Mr.  MASON  begged  to  he  permitted  to  use  that  mode  of  arguing 
to  which  he  had  been  accustomed.  However  desirous  he  was  of 
pleasing  that  worthy  gentleman,  his  duty  Would  give  way  to  that 
pleasure. 

Mr.  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  said,  it  was  abetter  direction' and 
•security  than  was  in  the  state  government.  No  appropriation  shall 
be  made  of  the  public  money  but  by  law.  There  could  not  be  any 
misapplication  of  it.  Therefor^,  he  thought,  instead  of  censure,  it 
•merited  applause;  being  a  dautious  provision,  which  few  constitu¬ 
tions,  or  none,  had  ever  adopted.  —  •*  1 

Mr.  CORBIN  concurred  in  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Nicholas  on 
this  subject.  '  *  ,* 

Mr.  MADISON  thought  it  much  better  than  if  it  had  mentioned 
-any  specified  period;  because,  if  the  accounts  of  the  public  receipts 
and  expenditures  were  to  be  published  at  short  stated  periods,  they 
would  not  be  so  full  and  connected  as  would  be  necessary  for  a 


DEBATES. 


434 


[HtNIY. 


thorough  comprehension  of  them,  and  detection  of  any  errors.  But 
by  giving  them  an  opportunity  of  publishing  them  from  time  to 
time,  as  might  be  found  easy  and  convenient,  they  would  be  more 
full  and  satisfactory  to  the  public,  and  would  be  sufficiently  frequent. 
He  thought,  after  all,  that  this  provision  went  farther  than  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  any  state  in  the  union,  or  perhaps  in  the  worlds 

Mr.  MASON  replied,  that  in  the  confederation,  the  public  pro¬ 
ceedings  were  to  be  published  monthly,  whifch  was  infinitely  better 
than  depending  on  men’s  virtue  to  publish  them  or  not,  as  they 
might  please.  If  there  was  tio  such  provision  in  the  constitution 
of  Virginia,  gentlemen  ought  to  consider  the  difference  between 
euch  a  full  representation,  dipersed  and  mingled  with  every  part  of 
the  community,  as  the  state  representation  was,  and  such  an  inade* 
quate  representation  as  this  was.  One  might  be  safely  trusted,  but 
not  the  other.  *  • 

Mr.  MADISON  ieplibd,  that  the  inconveniences  which  had  been 
experienced  from  the  confederation  in  that  respect,  had  their  weight 
with  him  in  recommending  this  in  preference  to  it;  for  that  it  was 
impossible,  in  such  short  intervals,  to  adjust  the  public  accounts  in 
any  satisfactory  manner. 

The  seventh  clause  was  then  read, 

Mr.'HENBY. — Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  now  come  to  the  ninth 

* 

section,  and  I  consider  myself  at  liberty  to  take  a  short  view  of  the 
whole.  I  wish  to  do  it  very  briefly.  Give  me  leave  to  remark, 
that  there  is  a  bill  of  rights  in  that  government. 

There  are  express  restrictions  which  are  in  the  shape  of  a  bill  of 
rights,  but  they  bear  the  name  of  the  ninth  section,  The  design  of 
4he  negative  expressions  in  this  section,  is  to  prescribe  limits  beyond 
which  the  powers  of  congress  shall  not  go.  These  are  the  sole 
bounds  intended  by  the  American  government.  Whereabouts  do 
we  stand  with  respect  to  a  bill  of  rights!  Examine  it  and  compare 
it  to  the  idea  manifested  by  the  Virginian  bill  of  rights*  or  that  of 
the  other  states.  The  restraints  in  this  congressional  bill  of  rights, 
are  so  feeble  and  few,  that  it  would  have  been  infinitely  better,  to 
have  said  nothing  about  iti  The  fair  implication  is,  that  they  can 
do  every  thing  they  are  not  forbidden  to  do.  What  will  be  the  re¬ 
sult  if  congress,  in  the  course  of  their  legislation,  should  do  a  thing 
not  restrained  by  this  ninth  section!  It  will  fall  as  an  incidental 
power  to  congress,  not  being  prohibited  expressly  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion.  The  first  prohibition  is,  that  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  but  when  in  case  of  rebellion,  or  inva¬ 
sion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it.  It  results  clearly,  that  if  it 
had  not  said  so,  they  could  suspend  it  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  It 
reverses  the  position  of  the  friends  of  this  constitution,  that  every 


H**nv.] 


VIRGINIA. 


425 


thing  is  retained  which  is  not  given  up.  For  instead  of  this,  every 
thing  is  given  up,  which  is  not  expressly  reserved.  It  does  not 
ffpeak  affirmatively,  and  say  that  it  shall  be  suspended  in  those  ca¬ 
ses.  But  that  it  shall  not  be  suspended  but  in  certain  cases;  go¬ 
ing  on  a  supposition  that  every  thing  which  is  not  negatived,  shall 
remain  with  congress.  If  the  powers  remains  with  the  people,  how 
can'congress  supply  the  want  of  an  affirmative  grant!  They  can-  - 
npt  do  it  but  by  implication,  which  destroys  their  doctrine.  The 
Virginia  bill  of  rights  interdicts  the  relinquishment  of  the  sword  and 
purse  without  control.  That  bill  of  rights  secures  the  great  and 
principal  rights  of  mankind.  But  this  bill  of  rights  extends  to  bur 
very  few  cases,  and  is  destructive  of  the  doctrine  advanced  by  the 
friends  of  that  paper. 

If  ex  post  facto  laws  had  not  been  interdicted,  they  might  also  have 
been  extended  by  implication  at  pleasure.  Let  us  consider  whether 
this  restriction  be  founded  in  wisdom  or  good  policy.  If  no  ex  post 
facto  laws  be  made,  what  is  to  become  of  the  old  continental  paper 
dollars'?  Will  not  this  country  be  forced  to  pay  it  in  gold  and  sil¬ 
ver,  shilling  for  shilling?  Gentlemen  may  think  that  this  does  not 
deserve  an  answer  ;  But  it  is  an  all  important  question.  Because 
the  property  of  this  country  is  not  commensurate  to  the  enormous 
demand.  Our  own  government  triumphs  with  infinite  superiority 
when  put  in  contrast  with  that  paper.  The  want  of  a  bill  of  right# 
will  render  all  their  laws,  however  oppressive,  constitutional. 

If  the  government  of  Virginia  passes  a  law,  in  contradiction  to 
our  bill  of  rights,  it  is  nugatory.  By  that  paper  the  national  wealth 
Is  to  be  disposed  of  under  the  veil  of  secrecy  :  for  the  publication 
from  time  to  time,  will  amount  to  nothing  ;  and  they  may  conceal 
what  they  may  think  requires  secrecy.  How  different  it  is  in  your 
own  government?  Have  not  the  people  seen  the  journals  of  our  le¬ 
gislature  every  day  during  every  session?  Is  not  the  lobby  full  of 
people  every  day?  Yet,  gentleman  say,  that  the  publication  from 
time  to  time  is  a  security  unknown  in  our  state  government!  Such 
a  regulation  would  be  nugatory  and  vain,  or  at  least  needless,  as  tho 
people  see  the  journals  of  our  legislature,  and  hear  their  debates 
every  day.  If  this  be  not  more  secure  than  what  is  in  that  paper, 

I  will  give  up  that  I  have  totally  misconceived  the  principles  of  tho 
government.  You  are  told,  that  your  rights  are  secured  in  this  new 
government.  They  are  guarded  in  no  other  part,  but  this  ninth  sec¬ 
tion.  The  few  restrictions  in  that  section  are  your  own  safeguards. 
They  may  control  your  actions,  and  your  every  words,  without  be¬ 
ing  repugnant  to  that  paper.  The  existence  of  your  dearest  privir 


DEBATES. 


426 


[Randolph. 


1  t  A 

leges  will  be  depend  on  the  consent  of  congress,  for  there  are  not 
within  the  restrictions  of  the  ninth  section. 

If  gentlemen  think  that  securing  the  slave  trade  is  a  capital  ob- 
ject,  that  the  privilege  of  the  habeas  corpus  is  sufficiently  secured  ; 
that  the  exclusion  of  ex  post  facto  laws  will  produce  no  inconveni¬ 
ence  ;  that  the  publication  from  time  to  time  will  secure  their  pro¬ 
perty,  in  one  word,  that  this  section  alone  will  sufficiently  secure 
their  liberties,  I  have  spoken  in  vain.  Every  word  of  mine,  and 
my  worthy  coadjutor,  is  lost.  I  trust  that  gentlemen,  on  this  occa¬ 
sion,  will  see  the  great  objects  of  religion,  liberty  of  the  press,  trial 
by  jury,  interdiction  of  cruel  punishments,  and  every  other  sacred 
right  secured,  before  they  agree  to  that  paper.  These  most  impor¬ 
tant  human  rights  are  not  protected  by  that  section,  which  is  the 
only  safeguard  in  the  constitution.  My  mind  will  not  be  quieted 
till  I  see  something  substantial  come  forth  in  the  shape  of  a  bill  of 
rights.  -  “  »  . 

Gov.  RANDOLPH — Mr  Chairman,  the  general  review  which  the 
gentleman  has  taken  of  the  ninth  section  is  so  inconsistent,  that  in 
order  to  answer  him,  I  must  with  your  permission,  who  is  the  cus- 
tos  of  order  here,  depart  from  the  rule’tof  the  housed  in  some  degree. 
I  declared  some  days  ago  that  I  would  give  my  suffrage  for  this 
constitution,  not  because  I  considered  it  without  blemish,  but  be- 
cause  the  critical  situation  of  our  country  demanded  it.  I  invite 
those  who  think  with  me  to  vote  for  the  constitution.  But  where 
things  occur,  in  it  which  I  disapprove  cf,  I  shall  be  ’candid  in  ex¬ 
posing  my  objections. 

Permit  me  to  return  to  that  clause,  which  is  called  by  gentlemen 
the  sweeping  clause.  I  observed  yesterday,  that  I  conceived  the  con¬ 
struction  which  had  been  put  on  this  clause  by  the  advocates  of  the 
constitution  was  too  narrow ;  anrj  that  the  construction  put  upon  it 
by  the  other  party,  was  extravagant.  The  immediate  explanation 
appears  to  me  most  rational.  The  former  contend,  that  it  gives  no 
supplementary  power,  but  only  enables  them  to  make  laws  to  execute 
the  delegated  powers,  or  in  other  words,  that  it  only  involves  the 
powers  incidental  to  those  expressly  delegated.  By  incidental  pow¬ 
ers  they  mean  those  which  are  necessary  for  the  principal  thing. 
That  the  incident  is  inseparable  from  the  principal,  is  a  maxim  in 
the  construction  of  laws.  A  constitution  differs  from  a  law.  For 
a  law  only  embraces  one  thing — but  a  constitution  embraces  a  num 
her  ot  things,  and  is  to  have  a  more  liberal  construction.  I  need  no_ 
recar  to  the  constitutions  of  Europe  for  a  precedent  to  direct  my  ex¬ 
plication  of  this  clause,  because  in  Europe  there  is  no  constitution 
wholly  in  writing.  The  European  constitutions  sometimes  consist 


.  I 


Randolph.]  VIRGINIA.  427 

in  detached  statutes  or  ordinances.- — Sometimes  they  are  on  record, 
and  sometimes  they  depend  on  immemorial  tradition.  The  Ameri¬ 
can  constitutions  are  singular,  and  their  construction  ought  to  be 
liberal.  On  this  principle  what  should  be  said  of  the  clause  under 
consideration  (Jhe  sweeping  clause ).  If  incidental  powers  be  those 
only  which  are  necessary  for  the  principal  thing,  the  clause  would 
be  superfluous.  *  •  '  . 

Let  us  take  an  example  of  a  single  department:  for  instance,  that 
of  the  president,  who  has  certain  things  annexed  to  his  office.  Does 
it  not  reasonably*  follow,  that  he  must  have  some  incidental  powers? 
The  principle  of  incidental  powers  extends  to  all  parts  of  the  sys¬ 
tem.  If  you  then  say,  that  the  president  has  incidental  powers, 
you  reduce  it  to  tautology .t  I  cannot  conceive  that  the  vfair  inter¬ 
pretation  of  these  words  is,  as  the  honorable  member  says. 

Let  me  say,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  adversaries  of  the  consti¬ 
tution  wander  equally  from  the  true  meaning.  If  it  would  not 
fatigue  thehotfsetoo  far,  I  would  go  back  to  the  question  of  reserved 
rights.  The  gentleman  supposes,  that  complete  and  unlimited  legis¬ 
lation  is  vested  in  the  congress  of  the  United  States.  This  suppo- 

*  .  1  r 

sition  is  founded  on  false  reasoning.  What  is  the  present  situation 
of  this  state?  She  has  .possession'of  all  rights  of  sovereignty,  ex¬ 
cept  those  given  to  the  co/i federation.  She  must  delegate  powers  to 
the  confederate  government.  It  is  nece’ssary  for  her  public  happiness. 
Her  weakness  compels  her  to  confederate  with  the  twelve  other 
governments.  She  trusts  certain. powers  to  fhe  general  government 
in  order  to  support,  protect,  and  defend  the  union.  Now  is  there 
not  a  demonstrable  difference  between  the  principle  of  the  state 
government,  and  the  general  government?  There  is  not  a  word  said 
in  the  state  government  of  the  powers  given  to  if,  because  they  are 
general.  But.  in  the  general  constitution,  its  powers  are  enumerated. 
Is  it  not  then  fairly  deducible,  that  it  has  no  power  but  what  is  ex¬ 
pressly  ‘given  it?  For  if  its  powers  were  to  be  general,  an  enume¬ 
ration’ wofild  bpjieedless.  *  •  , 

But  the  insertion  of  the  negative  restrictions  has  given  cause  of 
triumph,  it  seems,  to  gentlemen.  They  suppose,  that  it  demonstrates 
that  congress  are  to  have  powers  by  implication.  I  will  meet  them 
on  that  ground.  I  persuade  myself,  that  every  exception  here  men¬ 
tioned,  is  an  exception  not  from  general  powers,  but  from  the  par¬ 
ticular  powers  therein  vested.  To  what  power  in  the  general 
government  is  the  exception  made,  respecting  the  importation  of 
negroes'1  Not  from  a  general  power,  but  from  a  particular  power 
expressly  enumerated.  This  is  an  exception  from  the  power  given 
them  of  regulating  commerce.  lie  asks,  where  is  the  power  to 
which  the  prohibition  of  suspending  the  habeas  corpus  is  an  excep- 


DEBATES. 


428 


[Randolph. 


tiont  1  contend  that  by  virtue  of  the  power  given  to  congress  to 
regulate  courts,  they  could  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  This 
is  therefore  an  exception  to  that  .power. 

The  third  restriction  is,  that  “no  bill  of  attainder,  or  ex  post  facto 
law  shall  be  passed.”  This  is  a  manifest  exception  to  another 
power.  We  know  well  that  attainders,  and  ex  post  facto  laws,  have 
always  been  the  engines  of  criminal  jurisprudence.  This  is  there¬ 
fore  an  exception  to  the  criminal  jurisdiction  vested  in  that  body. 

% 

The  fourth  restriction  is,  that  no  capitation,  or  other  direct  tax 
shall  be  laid,  unless  in  proportion  to  the  census  before  directed  to 
be  taken.  Our  debates  shew  from  what  power  this  is  an  exception. 

The  restrictions  in  the  fifth  clause  are  an  exception  to  the  power 
of  regulating  commerce. 

The  restriction  of  the  sixth  clause,  that  no  money  should  be  drawn 
from  the  treasury,  but  in  consequence  of  appropriations  made  by 
law,  is  an  exception  to  the  power  of  paying  the  debts. of  the  United 
States;  for  the  power  of  drawing  money  from  the  treasury  is  conse¬ 
quential  of  that,  of  paying  the  public  debts. 

The  next  restriction  is,  that  no  titles. of  nobility  shall  be  granted 
by  the  United  States.  If  we  cast  our  eyes  to  the  manner  in  which 
titles  of  nobility  first  originated,  we  shall  find  this  restriction  founded 
on  the  same  principles.  These  sprung  from  military  and  civil  offices. 
Both  are  put  in  the  hands  of  the  United  States,  and  therefore  I  pre¬ 
sume  it  to  be  an  exception  to  that  power. 

The  last  restriction  restrains  any  persons  in  office  from  accepting 
of  any  present  or  emolument,  title,  or  office,  from  any  foreign  prince 
or  state.  It.  must  have  been  observed  before,  that  though  the  con¬ 
federation  had  restricted  congress  from  exercising  any  powers  not 
given  them,  yet  they  inserted  it,  not  fiom  any  apprehension  of 
usurpation,  but  for  greater  security.  This  restriction  is  provided  to 
prevent  corruption.  All  men  have  a  natural  inherent  right  of  re¬ 
ceiving  emoluments  from  any  one,  unless  they  be  restrained  by  the 
regulations  of  the  community.  An  accident  which  actually  happened 
operated  in  producing  the  restristion.  A  box  was  presented  to  our 
ambassador,  by  the  king  of  our  allies.  It  was  thought  proper,  in 
order  to  exclude  corruption  and  foreign  influence,  to  prohibit  any 
one  in  office  from  receiving  or  holding  any  emoluments  from  foreign 
states.  I  believe,  that  if  at  that  moment,  when  we  were  in  harmony 
with  the  king  of  France,  we  had  supposed  that  he  was  corrupting 
our  ambassador,  it  might  have  disturbed  that  confidence,  and  dimi¬ 
nished  that  mutual  friendship,  which  contributed  to  carry  us  through 
the  war. 

The  honorable  gentlemen  observe,  that  congress  might  define 
punishments,  from  petty  larceny  to  high  treason.  This  is  an  unfox- 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


429 


tunate  quotation  for  the  gentleman,  because  treason  is  expressly  de¬ 
fined  in  the  third  section  of  the  third  article,  and  they  can  add  no 
feature  to  it.  They  have  not  cognizance  over  any  other  crime,  ex¬ 
cept  piracies,  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas,  and  offerees 
against  the  law  of  nations. 

But  the  rhetoric  of  the  gentleman  has  highly  colored  the  dangers 
of  giving  the  general  government  an  indefinite  power  of  providing 
for  the  general  welfare.  I  contend  that  no  such  power  is  given. 
They  have  power1  “to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  ex¬ 
cises,  to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common  defence,  and 
general  welfare  of  the  United  States.”  Is  this  an  independent,  se¬ 
parate,  substantive  power,  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare  of  th© 
United  States!  No,  Sir.  They  can  lay  and  collect  taxes,  &c.  For 
what?  To  pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  general  welfare.  Wera 
not  this  the  case,  the  following  part  of  the  clause  would  be  absurd. 
It  would  have  been  treason  against  common  language.  Take  it  al- 
together,  and  let  rne  ask  if  the  plain  interpretation  be  not  this:  a 
power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  &c.  in  order  to  provide  for  the  gene¬ 
ral  welfare,  and  pay  debts. 

On  the  subject  of  a  bill  of  rights,  the  want  df  which  has  been 
complained  of,  I  will  observe  that  it  has  been  sanctified  by  such 
reverend  authority,  that  I  feel  some  difficulty  in  going  against  it.  I 
shall  not,  however,  be  deterred  from  giving  my  opinion  on  this  oc¬ 
casion,  let  the  consequence  be  what  it  may.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  war  we  had  no  certain  bill  of  rights;  for  our  charter  cannot  b© 
considered  as  a  bill  of  rights.  It  is  nothing  more  than  an  investi¬ 
ture  in  the  hands  of  the  Virginia  citizens,  of  those  rights  which  be¬ 
longed  to  the  British  subjects.  When  the  British  thought  propeT 
to  infringe  our  rights,  was  it  not  necessary  to  mention  in  our  con¬ 
stitution,  those  rights  which  ought  to  be  paramount  to  the  power  of 
the  legislature!  W'hy  is  the  bill  of  rights  distinct  from  the  consti¬ 
tution!  I  consider  bills  of  rights  in  this  view,  that  the  government 
should  use  them  when  there  is  a  departure  from  its  fundamental 
principles,  in  order  to  restore  them. 

This  is  the  true  sense  of  a  bill  of  rights.  If  it  be  consistent  with 
the  constitution,  or  contains  additional  rights,  why  not  put  it  in  the 
constitution!  If  it  be  repugnant  to  the  constitution,  here  will  be  a 
perpetual  scene  of  warfare  between  them.  The  honorable  gentle^ 
man  has  praised  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia,  and  called  it  his  guar, 
dian  angel,  and  villified  this  constitution  for  not  having  it.  Give 
me  leave  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  representatives  of  the 
people  of  a  particular  country,  who  are  appointed  as  the  ordinary 
legislature,  having  no  limitation  to  their  powers,  and  another  body 
arising  from  a  compact  and  certain  delineated  powers.  Were  a  bill 


430 


DEBATES. 


[RANDOLrH. 


of  rights  necessary  in  the  former,  it  would  not  in  the  latter  ;  for  the 
best  security  that  can  be  in  the  latter,  is  the  express  enumeration  of 
its  powers.  But  let  me  ask  the  gentleman  where  his  favorite  rights 
are  #  violated.?  They  are  not  violated  by  the  tenth  section,  which 
contains  restrictions  on  the  states.  Are  the}7'  violated  by  the  enume¬ 
rated  powers?  [Here  his  excellency  read  from  the  eighth  to  the 
twelfth  article  of  the  bill  of  rights-]  Is  there  not  provision  made  in 
this  constitution  for  the  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases.?  Does  not 
the  third  article  provide,  that  the  trial  of  all  crimes  shall  be  by  jury, 
and  held  where  the  said  crimes  shall  have  been  committed.? 
Does  it  not  follow,  that  the  cause  and  nature  of  the  accusation  must 
be  produced,  because  otherwise  they  cannot  proceed  on  the  cause? 
Every  one  knows,  that  the  witnesses  must  be  brought  before  the  ju¬ 
ry,  or  else  the  prisoner  will  be  discharged.  Calling  of  evidence  in 
his  favor  is  co-incident  to  his  trial.  There  is  no  suspicion  that 
less  than  twelve  jurors  will  be  thought  sufficient.  The  only  defect- 
is,  that  there  is  no  speedy  trial.  Consider  how  this  could  have  been 
amended.  We  have  heard  complaints  against  it,  because  it  is  sup¬ 
posed  the  jury  is  to  come  from  the  state  at  large.  It  will  be  in  their 
power  to  have  juries  from  the  vicinage.  And  would  not  the  com¬ 
plaints  have  been  louder  if  they  had  appointed  a  federal  court  to  be 
had  in  every  county  in  the  state?  Criminals  are  brought  in  this 
state  from  every  part  of  the  country  to  the  general  court,  and  jurors 
from  the  vincinacre  are  summoned  to  the  trials.  There  can  be  no 

O 

reason  to  prevent  the  general  government  from  adopting  a  similar 
regulation. 

As  to  the  exclusion  of  excessive  bail  and  fines,  and  cruel  and  un. 
usual  punishments,  this  would  follow  of  itself  without  a  bill  of  right, 
Observations  have  been  made  about  watchfulness  over  those  in  pow¬ 
er,  which  deserve  our  attention.  There  must  be  a  combination,  we 
must  presume  corruption  in  the  house  of  representatives,  senate,  and 
president,  before  we  can  suppose  that  excessive  fines  can  be  imposed 
or  cruel  punishments  inflicted.  Their  number  is  the  highest  securi¬ 
ty.  Numbers  are  the  highest  security  in  our  own  constitution,, 
which  has  attracted  so  many  eulogiums  from  the  gentlemen.  Here 
we  have  launched  into  a  sea  of  suspicions.  How  shall  we  check 
power.?  By  their  numbers.  Before  these  cruel  punishments  can 
be  inflicted,  laws  must  be  passed,  and  judges  must  judge  contrary 
to  justice.  This  would  excite  universal  discontent,  and  detestation 
of  the  members  of  the  government.  They  might  involve  their  friends 
in  the  calamities  resulting  from  it,  and  could  be  removed  from  office. 
I  never  desire  a  greater  security  than  this  which  I  believe  to  be  ab¬ 
solutely  sufficient. 


VIRGINIA. 


431 


Randolph.] 

That  general  warrants  are  grievous  and  oppressive,  and  ought  not 
to  be  granted,  I  full}  admit.  I  heartily  concur  in  expressing  my 
detestation  of  them.  But  we  have  sufficient  security  here  also.  We  do 
not  rely  on  the  integrity  of  any  one  particular  person  or  body  ;  but  on 
the  number  and  different  orders  of  the  members  of  the  government : 
some  of  them  having  necessarily  the  same  feelings  with  ourselves. 
Can  it  be  believed,  that  the  federal  judiciary  would  not  be  indepen¬ 
dent  enough  to  prevent  such  oppressive  practices  1  If  they  will  not 
do  justice  to  persons  injured,  may  they  not  go  to  our  own  state  ju¬ 
diciaries-  and  obtain  it  ! 

Gentlemen  have  been  misled  to  a  certain  degree,  by  a  general  de¬ 
claration,  that  the  trial  by  j“ury  was  gone.  We  see  that  in  the  most 
valuable  cases,  it  is  reserved.  Is  it  abolished  in  civil  cases!  Let 
him  put  his  finger  on  the  part  where  it  is  abolished.  The  constitution 
is  silent  on  it.  What  expression  would  you  wish  the  constitution 
to  use,  to  establish  it  !  Remember  we  were  not  making  a  constitu¬ 
tion  for  Virginia  alone,  or  we  might  have  taken  Virginia  for  our 
directory.  But  we  were  forming  a  constitution  for  thirteen  states. 
The  trial  by  jury  is  different  in  different  states.  In  some  states  it 
is  excluded  in  cases  in  which  it  is  admitted  in  others.  In  admiialty 
causes  it  is  not  used.  Would  you  have  a  jury  to  determine  the  case  of 
a  capture!  The  Virginian  legislature  thought  proper  to  make  an 
exception  of  that  case.  These  depend  on  the  law  of  nations,  and 
no  twelve  men  that  could  he  picked  up  could  be  equal  to  the  decision 
of  such  a  matter. 

Then,  Sir,  the  freedom  of  the  press  is  said  to  be  insecure.  God 
forbid  that  I  should  give  my  voice  against  the  freedom  of  the  press. 
But  I  ask  (and  with  confidence  that  it  cannot  be  answered,)  where 
is  the  page  where  it  is  restrained  !  If  there  had  been  any  regulation 
about  it,  leaving  it  insecure,  then  there  might  have  been  reason  for 
clamors.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  If  it  be,  I  again  ask  for  the 
particular  clause  which  gives  liberty  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the 
press! 

He  has  added  religion  to  the  objects  endangered  in  his  conception. 
Is  there  any  power  given  over  it !  Let  it  be  pointedout.  Will  he  not 
be  contented  with  the  answer  that  has  been  frequently  given  to  that 
objection  !  The  variety  of  sects  which  abounds  in  the  United  States 
is  the  best  security  for  the  freedom  of  religion.  No  part  of  the  con¬ 
stitution,  even  if  strictly  construed,  will  justify  a  conclusion,  that 
the  general  government  can  take  away,  or  impair  the  freedom  of 
religion. 

The  gentleman  asks,  with  triumph,  shall  we  be  deprived  of  these 
valuable  rights  !  Had  there  been  an  exception,  or  an  express  in- 
/;,i;  gement  of  .those  rights,  he  might  object.  But  I  conceive  every 


DEBATES. 


432 


[Randolph. 


fair  reasoner  will  agree,  that  there  is  Do  just  cause  to  suspect  that 
they  will  be  violated. 

But  he  objects,  that  the  common  law  is  not  established  by  the 
constitution.  The  Wisdom  of  the  convention  is  displayed  by  its 
omission;  because  the  common  law  ought  not  to  be  immutably 
fixed.  Is  it  established  in  our  own  constitution,  or  the  bill  of  rights, 
which  has  been  resounded  through  the  house?  It  is  established 
only  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  and  can  therefore  be  changed  a3 
circumstances  may  require  it.  Let  the  honorable  gentleman  consi¬ 
der  what  would  be  the  destructive  consequences,  of  its  establishment 
in  the  constitution.  Even  in  England,  where  the  firmest  opposi¬ 
tion  has  been  made  to  encroachments  upon  it,  it  has  been  frequently 
changed.  What  would  have  been  our  dilemma  if  it  had  been  es¬ 
tablished?  Virginia  has  declared,  that  children  shall  have  equal 
portions  of  the  real  estate  of  their  intestate  parents,  and  it  is  cod- 
6istant  to  the  principles  of  a  republican  government. 

The  immutable  establishment  of  the  common  law,  would  have 
been  repugnant  to  that  regulation.  It  would  in  many  respects  bo 
destructive  to  republican  principles,  and  productive  of  great  incon¬ 
veniences.  I  might  indulge  myself,  by  shewing  many  parts  of  tho 
common  law  which  would  have  this  effect.  I  hope  I  shall  not  bo; 
thought  to  speak  ludicriously,  "when  I  say,  the  writ  of  burning  here¬ 
tics,  would  have  been  revived  by  it.  It  would  tend  to  throw  real 
property  in  fewhands,  and  prevent  the  introduction  of  many  salutary 
regulations.  Thus,  were  the  common  law  adopted  in  that  system,  il 
would  destroy  the  principles  of  republican  government.  But  this 
is  not  excluded.  It  may  be  established  by  an  act  of  legislature.  Its 
defective  parts  may  be  altered,  and  it  may  be  changed  and  modified 
us  the  convenience  of  the 'public  may  require  it. 

I  said  when  I  opened  my  observations,  that  I  thought  the  friends 
of  the  constitution  were  mistaken,  when  they  supposed  the  powers 
granted  by  the  last  clause  of  the  eighth  section,  to  be  merely  inciden¬ 
tal;  and  that  its  enemies  were  equally  mistaken  when  they  put  such 
an  extravagant  construction  upon  it. 

My  objection  is,  that  the  clause  is  ambiguous,  and  that  that  ambi¬ 
guity  may  injure  the  states.  My  fear  is,  that  it  will  by  gradual  ac¬ 
cessions  gather  to  a  dangerous  length.  This  is  my  apprehension, 
and  I  disdain  to  disown  it.  I  will  praise  it  where  it  deserves  it,  and 
censure  it  where  it  appears  defective.  But,  sir,  are  we  to  reject  it, 
because  it  is  ambiguous  in  some  particular  instances?  I  cast  my 
eyes  to  the  actual  situation  of  America;  I  see  the  dreadful  tempest, 
to  which  the  pr6sent  calm  is  a  prelude,  if  disunion  takes  place.  1 
see  the  anarchy  which  must  happen,  if  no  energetic  government  b® 
established.  In  this  situation,  I  would  take  the  constitution,  were 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


433 


it  more  objectionable  than  it  is.  For  if  anarchy  and  confusion  fol¬ 
low  disunion,  an  enterprising  man  may  enter  into  the  American 
tin  one.  I  conceive  there  is  no  danger.  The  representatives  are 
'chosen  by  and  from  among  the  people.  They  will  have  a  fellow- 
feeling  for  the  farmers  and  planters.  The  twenty-six  senators,  re¬ 
presentatives  of  the  states,  will  not  be  those  desperadoes  and  horrid 
adventurers  which  they  are  represented  to  be.  The  state  legislatures, 

I  trust,  ill  not  forget  the  duty  they  owe  to  their  country  so  far,  as 
to  choose  such  men  to  manage  their  federal  interests.1  I  trust  that 
the  members  of  congress  themselves  will  explain  the  ambiguous 
parts  .  and  if  not,  the  states  can  combine  in  order  to  insist  on  amen¬ 
ding  the  ambiguities.  I  would  depend  on  the  present  actual  feeling 
of  the  people  of  America,  to  introduce  any  amendment  which  may 
be  necessary.  I  repeat  it  again,  though  I  do  not  reverence  the  con¬ 
stitution,  that  its  adoption  is  necessary  to  avoid  the  storm  which  is 
hanging  over  America,  and  that  no  greater  curse  can  befal  her,  than 
the  dissolution  of  the  political  connection  between  the  states. 
Whether  we  shall  propose  previous  or  subsequent  amendments,  is 
new  the  only  dispute. — It  is  supererogation  to  repeat  again  the  argu¬ 
ments  in  support  of  each.  But  I  ask  gentlemen,  whether,  as  eight 
states  have  adopted  it,  it  be  not  safer  to  adopt  it,  and  rely  on  the 
probability  of  obtaining  amendments,  than  by  a  rejection  to  hazard 
a  breach  of  the  union!  I  hope  to  be  excused  for  the  breach  of  order 
which  I  have  committed. 

Mr  HENRY  lamented,  thathecould  not  see  with  that  perspicuity 
which  other  gentlemen  were  blessed  with.  But  the  ninth  section 
struck  his  mind  still  in  an  unfavorable  light.  He  hoped,  as  the  gen¬ 
tleman  had  been  indulged  in  speaking  of  the  constitution  in  gen¬ 
eral,  that  he  would  be  allowed  to  answer  him  before  they  adopted  or 
rejected  it. 

The  first  clause  of  the  tenth  section  was  next  read. 

Mr  HENRY  apologized  for  repeatedly  troubling  the  committee 
with  his  fears.  But  he  apprehended  the  most  serious  consequences- 
from  these  restrictions  on  the  states.  As  they  could  not  emit  bills 
of  credit,  make  any  thing  bpt  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in  pay¬ 
ment  of  debts,  pass  ex  post  facto  laws,  or  impair  the  obligation  of 
contracts ;  though  these  restrictions  were  founded  on  good  princi¬ 
ples,  yet  he  feared  they  would  have  this  effect,.  That  this  state 
would  be  obliged  to  pay  for  her  share  of  the  continental  money, 
shilling  for  shilling.  He  asked  gentlemen  who  had  been  in  high 
authority,  whether  there  were  not  some  state  speculations  on  this 
matter!  He  had  been  informed  that  some  states  had  acquired  vast 
quantities  of  that  money,  which  they  would  be  able  fc>  recover  in  its 

nominal  value  of  the  other  states., 

VOL.  3. 


28 


434 


DEBATES. 


[Masox. 


Mr  MADISON  admitted  there  might  be  some  speculations  on  the 
subject.  He  believed  the  old  continental  money  was  settled  in  a 
very  disproportionate  manner.  It  appeared  to  him,  however,  that  it 
was  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  on  this  point,  for  there  was  a  clause 
in  the  constitution  which  cleared  it  up.  The  first  clause  of  the  sixth 
article,  provides,  that  “  All  debts  contracted,  and  engagements  en¬ 
tered  into  before  the  adoption  of  this  constitution,  shall  Be  as  valid 
against  the  United  States,  under  this  constitution,  as  under  the  con¬ 
federation.”  He  affirmed,  that  it  was  meant  there  should  be  no 
change  with  respect  to  claims  by  this  political  alteration ;  and  that 
the  public  would  stand,  with  respect  to  their  creditors,  as  before. 
He  thought  that  the  validity  of  claims  ought  not  to  diminish  by  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution.  But,  however,  it  could  not  increase 
the  demands  on  the  public. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  declared,  he  had  been  informed  that 
some  states  had  speculated  most  enormously  in  this  matter.  Many 
individuals  had  speculated  so  as  to  make  great  fortunes  on  the  ruin 
of  their  fellow-citizens.  The  clause  which  has  been  read  as  a  suffi¬ 
cient  security,  seemed  to  him  to  be  satisfactory  as  far  as  it  went. 
That  is,  that  the  continental  money  ought  to  stand  on  the  same 
ground  as  it  did  previously,  or  that  the  claim  should  not  be  impaired. 
Uuder  the  confederation  there  were  means  of  settling  the  old  paper 
money,  either  in  congress  or  in  the  state  legislatures.  The  money 
had  at  last  depreciated  to  a  thousand  for  one.  The  intention  of  state 
speculation,  as  well  as  individual  speculation,  was  to  get  as  much 
as  possible  of  that  money,  in  older  to  recover  its  nominal  value.. 
The  means,  says  he,  of  settling  this  money  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
old  congress.  They  could  discharge  it  at  its  depreciated  value  Is 
there  that  means  here!  No,  sir,  we  must  pay  it  shilling  for  shill¬ 
ing,  or  at  least  at  the  rate  of  one  for  forty.  The  amount  will  sur¬ 
pass  the  value  of  the  property  of  the  United  States.  Neither  the 
state  legislatures  nor  congiess  can  make  an  ex  post  facto  law.  The 
nominal  value  must  therefore  be  paid.  Where  is  the  power  in  the 
new  government,  to  settle  this  money  so  as  to  prevent  the  country 
from  being  ruined!  When  they  prohibit  the  making  ex  post  facto 
laws,  they  will  have  no  authority  to  prevent  our  being  ruined  by 
paying  that  money  at  its  nominal  value. 

Without  some  security  against  it,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  pay  it 
to  the  last  particle  of  our  property.  Shall  we  ruin  our  people  by 
taxation,  from  generation  to  generation,  to  pay  that  money?  Should 
any  ex  post  facto  law  be  made  to  relieve  us  from  such  payments,  it 
will  not  be  regarded,  because  ex  post  facto  laws  are  interdicted  in 
the  constitution.  We  may  be  taxed  for  centuries,  to  give  advantage 
to  a  few  particular  states  in  the  unioh,  and  a  number  of  rapacious 
speculators.  If  there  be  any  real  security  against  this  misfortune, 


VIRGINIA. 


435 


Henrx.] 

let  gentlemen  shew  it.  I  can  see  none.  The  clause  under  consid¬ 
eration  does  away  the  pretended  security  in  the  clause  which  was 
^adduced  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  This  enormous  mass  of 
worthless  money,  which  has  been  offered  at  a  thousand  for  one, 
must  be  paid  in  actual  gold  and  silver  at  the  the  nominal  value. 

Mr  MADISON.  Mr  Chairman — It  appears  to  me  immaterial, 
who  holds  those  great  quantities  of  paper  money,  which  were  in 
circulation  before  the  peace,  or  at  what  value  they  acquired  it ,  for 
it  will  not  be  affected  by  this  constitution.  What  would  satisfy 
gentlemen  more  than  that  the  new  constitution  would  place  us  in 
the  same  situation  with  the  old?  In  this  respect  it  has  done  so. 
The  claims  against  the  United  States  are  declared  to  be  as  valid  as 
l hey  were,  but  not  more  so.  Would  they  have  a  particular  specifica¬ 
tion  of  these  matters?  Where  can  there  be  any  danger?  Is  there 
any  reason  to  believe  that  the  new  rulers.,  one  branch  of  which  will 
be  drawn  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  will  neglect  or  violate  our 
interests  more  than  the  old? — It  rests  on  the  obligation  of  public 
faith  only  in  the  articles  of  confederation.  It  will  be  so  in  this  con¬ 
stitution  should  it  be  adopted.  If  the  new  rulers  should  wish  to 
enhance  its  value,  in  order  to  gratify  its  holders,  how  can  they 
compel  the  states  to  pay  it  if  the  letter  of  the  constitution  be  obser¬ 
ved?  Do  gentlemen  wish  the  public  creditors  should  be  put  in  a 
worse  situation?  Would  the  people  at  large  wish  tosatisfy  creditors 
in  such  a  manner  us  to  ruin  them?  Thefe  cannot  be  a  majority  of 
the  people  of  America  that  would  wish  to  defraud  their  public  cred¬ 
itors.  I  consider this  as  well  guarded  as  possible.  It  rests  on  plain 
and  honest  principles.  J  cannot  conceive  how  it  could  be  more 
honorable  or  safe. — [Mr  Madison  made  -some  other  observations 
which  could  not  be  heard.] 

Mr  HENRY.  Mr  Chairman — I  am  convinced,  and  I  see  clearly 
that  this  paper  money  must  be  discharged,  shilling  for  shilling. 
The  honorable  gentleman  must  see  better  than  I  can,  from  his  par¬ 
ticular  situation  and  judgment,  but  this  has  certainly  escaped  his 
attention.  The  question  arisingon  the  clause  before  you,  is,  whether 
an  act  of  the  legislature  of  this  state,  for  scaling  money,  will  be  of 
sufficient  validity  to  exonerate  you  from  paying  the  nominal  value, 
when  such  a  law,  called  ex  post  facto,  and  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  are  expressly  interdicted  by  it  ?  Your  hands  are  tied 
up  by  this  clause,  and  you  must  pay  shilling  for  shilling;  and,  in 
the  last  section,  there  is  a  clause  that  prohibits  the  general  legisla¬ 
ture  from  passing  any  ex  post  facto  law — so  that  the  hands  oi 
conoress  are  tied  up,  as  well  as  the  hands  of  the  state  legislatures. 

How  will  this  thing  operate,  when  ten  or  twenty  millions  are 
demanded  as  the  quota  of  this  state?  You  will  cry  out  that  specie 


436 


DEBATES. 


[Henryv 


lators  have  got  it  at  one  for  a  thousand,  and  that  they  ought  to  ber 
paid  so.  Will  you  then  have  recourse  for  relief,  to  legislative  inter¬ 
ference  ?  They  cannot  relieve  you  because  of  that  clause.  The 
expression  includes  public  contracts,  as  well  as  private  contracts 
between  individuals.  Notwithstanding  the  sagacity  of  the  gentle¬ 
man,  he  cannot  prove  its  exclusive  relation  to  private  contracts. 
Here  is  an  enormous  demand,  which  your  children  to  the  tenth- 
generation  will  not  be  able  to  pay.  Should  we  ask,  if  there  be  any 
obligation  in  justice  to  pay  more  than  the  depreciated  value,  we  shall 
be  told  that  contracts  must  not  be  impaired.  Justice  may  make  a 
demand  of  millions,  but  the  people  cannot  pay  them. 

I  remember  the  clamors  and  public  uneasiness  concerning  the 
payments  of  British  debts,  put  into  the  treasury.  Was  not  the 
alarm  great  and  general  lest  these  pa3^ments  should  be  laid  on  the 
people  at  large  ?  Did  not  the  legislature  interfere  and  pass  a  law 
10  prevent  it1?  Was  it  not  re-echoed  evety  where,  that  the  people 
of  this  country  ought  not  to  pay  the  debts  of  their  great  ones?  And 
though  some  urged  their  patriotism,  and  merits  in  putting  money 
on  the  faith  of  the  public  into  the  treasury,  yet.  the  outcry  was  so 
great,  that  it  required  legislative  interference.  Should  those  enor¬ 
mous  demands  be  made  upon  us,  would  not  legislative  interference 
be  more  necessary  than  it  was  in  that  case?  Let  us  not  run  the 
risk  of  being  charged  with  carelessness,  and  neglect  of  the  interests 
of  our  constituents  and  posterity.  I  would  ask  the  number  of 
millions  \  It  is  without  exaggeration,  immense.  I  ask  gentlemen 
if  they  can  pay  one  hundred  millions,  or  two  hundred  millions? 
Where  have  they  the  means  of  paying  it  ?  Still  they  would  make 
us  proceed  to  tie  the  hands  of  the  states  and  of  congress. 

A  gentleman  has  said  with  great  force,  that  there  is  a  contest  for 
empire.  There  is  also  a  contest  for  money.  The  states  of  the  north 
wish  to  secure  a  superiority  of  interest  and  influence.  In  one  part 
their  deliberation  is  marked  with  wisdom,  and  in  the  other  with  the 
most  liberal  generosity.  When  we  have  paid  all  the  gold  and 
silver  we  could  to  replenish  the  congressional  coffers,  here  they  ask 
for  confidence.  Their  hands  will  be  tied  up.  They  cannot  merit 
confidence.  Here  is  a  transfer  from  the  old  to  the  new  government* 
without  the  means  of  relieving  the  greatest  distresses  which  can 
befall  the  people.  This  money  might  he  scalej,  sir,  but  the  exclu¬ 
sion  of  ex  post  facto  laws,  and  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts,  steps  nr  and  prevents  it.  Tiiese  were  admitted  by  the 
old  confederation.  There  is  a  contest  for  moneyas  well  as  empire,, 
as  I  have  said  before.  The  eastern  states  have  speculated  chiefly  in 
ibis  money.  /is  there  can  be  no  congressional  scale,  their  specula- 
wsO  fee  *»ux.#mely  profitable.  Not  satisfied  with  a  majorit 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


437 

in  the  legislative  councils,  they  must  have  all  our  property.  1  wish 
the  southern  genius  of  America  had  been  more  watchful. 

Phis  state  may  be  sued  in  the  federal  court,  for  those  enormous 
demands;  and  judgment  may  be  obtained,  unless  ex  post  facia  laws 
be  passed.  To  benefit  whom  are  we  to  run  this  risk  !  I  have  heard 

there  were  vast  quantities  of  that  money  packed  up  in  barrels _ those 

formidable  millions  are  deposited  in  the  northern  states,  and  whether 
in  public  or  private  hands,  makes  no  odds.  They  have  acquired  it 
for  the  most  inconsiderable  trifle.  If  you  accord  to  this  part,  you 
are  bound  hand  and  foot.  Judgment  must  be  rendered  against  you 
for  the  whole.  Throw  all  pride  out  of  the  question,  this  is  a  most 
nefarious  business.  Your  property  will  be  taken  from  you  to  satisfy 
thi3  most  infamous  speculation.  It  will  destroy  your  public  peace, 
and  establish  the  ruin  of  your  citizens.  Only  general  resistance 
will  remedy.  You  will  shut  the  door  against  every  ray  of  hope,  if 
you  allow  the  holders  of  this  money,  by  this  clause,  to  recover  their 
formidable  demands.  I  hope  gentlemen  will  see  the  absolute  neces¬ 
sity  of  amending  it,  by  enabling  the  state  legislatures  to  relieve 
their  people  from  such  nefarious  oppressions. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS — Mr  chairman,  I  beg  gentlemen  to 
consider  most  attentively  the  clause  under  consideration,  and  the 
objections  against  it.  He  says  there  exists  the  most  dangerous 
prospect.  Has  the  legislature  of  Virginia  any  right  to  make  a  law 
or  regulation  to  interfere  with  the  continental  debts!  Have  they  a 
right  to  make  ex  post  facto  laws,  and  laws  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts  for  that  purpose!  No,  Sir.  If  his  fears  proceed  from 
this  clause,  they  are  without  foundation.  This  clause  does  not  hin¬ 
der  them  from  doing  it  because  the  state  never  could  do  it — the 
jurisdiction  of  such  general  objects  being  exclusively  vested  in 

congress. 

© 

Rut,  says  he,  this  clause  will  hinder  the  general  government  from 
preventing  the  nominal  value  of  those  millions  from  being  paid.  On 
what  footing  does  this  business  stand,  it  the  constitution  be  adopted? 
By  it  all  contracts  will  be  valid,  and  only  as  valid,  as  under  the 
old  confederation,  The  new  government  will  give  the  holders  the 
same  power  of  recovery  as  the  old  one.  There  is  no  law  under  the 
existing  system  which  gives  power  to  any  tribunal  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  such  claims.  On  the  will  of  congress  alone  the  pay¬ 
ment  depends.  The  constitution  expressly  says,  that  they  shall 
be  only  as  binding  as  under  the  present  confederation.  Cannot 
they  decide  according  to  real  equity!  Those  who  have  this  money 
must  make  application  to  congress  for  payment.  Some  positive 
regulation  must  be  made  to  redeem  it.  It  cannot  be  said,  that  they 
have  power  of  passing  a  law  to  enhance  its  value.  They  cannot 
make  a  law  that  that  money  shall  no  longer  be  bijt  one  for  one.-** 


438 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas. 


For  though  they  have  power  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  United  States, 
they  can  only  pay  the  real  debts,  and  this  is  no  farther  a  debt  than 
it  was  before.  Application  must,  thorefore,  be  made  by  the  holders 
of  that  money,  to  congress,  who  will  make  the  most  proper  regula¬ 
tion  to  discharge  its  real  and  equitable,  and  not  its  nominal,  value. 

We  are  told  of  the  act  passed  to  exonerate  the  public  from  the 
payments  of  the  British  debts  put  into  the  treasury.  Thfs  has  no 
analogy  to  this,  those  payments  were  opposed,  because  they  were 
unjust.  But  he  supposes  that  congress  may  be  sued  by  those  specu¬ 
lators.  Where  is  the  clause  that  gives  that  power?  It  gives  no 
such  power.  This,  according  to  my  idea,  is  inconsistent.  Can  the 
the  supreme  legislature  be  sued  in  their  own  subordinate  courts,  by 
their  own  citizens,  in  cases  where  they  are  not  a  party?  They  may 
be  plaintiffs,  but  not  defendants.  But  the  individual  states  perhaps 
may  be  sued?  Pennsylvania  or  Virginia  may  be  sued.  How  is  this? 
Do  I  owe  the  man  in  New  England  any  thing?  Does  Virginia  owe 
any  thing  to  the  Pennsylvanian  holder  of  such  money?  Who  pro¬ 
mised  to  pay  it.?  Congress,  Sir.  Congress  are  answerable  to  the 
individual  holders  of  this  money,  and  individuals  are  answerable 
over  to  congress.  Therefore,  no  individual  can  call  on  any  state. 

But  the  northern  states  struggle  for  money  as  well  as  for  empire. 
_ Congress  cannot  make  such  a  regulation  as  they  please  at  pre¬ 
sent.  If  the  northern  states  wish  to  injure  us,  why  do  they  not  do 
it  now?  What  greater  dangers  are  there  to  be  dreaded  from  the 
new  government,  since  there  is  no  alteration?  If  they  have  a  major¬ 
ity  in  the  one  case,  they  have  in  the  other.  The  interests  of  those 
states  would  be  as  dangerous  for  us,  under  the  old,  as  under  the 
new  government,  which  leaves  this  business  where  it  stands,  be¬ 
cause  the  conclusion  says,  that  all  debts  contracted,  or  engage¬ 
ments  entered  into,  shall  be  only  as  valid  in  the  one  case  as  the 
other. 

r 

Gov  RANDOLPH — Mr  Chairman,  this  clause,  in  spite  of  the 
invective  of  the  gentleman,  is  a  great  favorite  of  mine,  because  it  is 
essential  to  justice.  I  shall  reserve  my  answer  respecting  the  safe¬ 
ty  of  the  people,  till  the  objection  be  urged,  but  I  must  make  a  tew 
observations.  He  says,  this  clause  will  be  injurious,  and  that  no 
scale  can  be  made,  because  there  is  a  prohibition  on  congress  of 
passing  ex  post  facto  laws.  If  the  gentleman  did  not  make  such 
strong  objections  to  logical  reasoning,  I  could  prove  by  such  reason¬ 
ing,  that  there  is  no  danger.  Ex  post  facto  laws,  if  taken  techni¬ 
cally,  relate  solely  to  criminal  cases;  and  my  honorable  colleague 
tells  you,  it  was  so  interpreted  in  convention.  What  greater  secu¬ 
rity  can  we  have  against  arbitrary  proceedings  in  criminal  jurispru¬ 
dence  than  this?  In  addition  to  the  interpretation  of  the  convention 


;£Ra??dolph. 


VIRGINIA. 


439 


let  me  shew  him  still  greater  authority.  The  same  clause  provides* 
that  no  bill  of  attainder  shall  be  passed.  It  shews  that  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  convention  was  drawn  to  criminal  matters  alone.  Shall 
it  be  complained  against  this  government,  that  it  prohibits  the  pas¬ 
sing  of  a  law  annexing  a  punishment  to  an  act  which  was  lawful  at 
the  time  of  committing  it!  With  regard  to  retrospective  laws  there 
is  no  restraint. 

Let  us  examine  the  cause  of  the  clamours  which  are  made  with 
regard  to  the  continental  money.  A  friend  has  mentioned  a  clause 
which  shews  there  is  no  danger  from  the  new  congress.  Does  it 
not  manifestly  appear,  that  they  are  precisely  in  the  same  predica¬ 
ment  as  under  the  old  confederation!  And  do  gentlemen  wish  that 
this  shonld  be  put  in  a  worse  condition!  If  they  have  equity  under 
the  old  confederation  they  have  equity  still.  There  is  no  tribunal 
to  recur  to  by  the  old  government.  There  is  none  in  the  new  for 
that  purpose.  If  the  old  congress  can  scale  that  money,  they  have 
this  power  still.  But  he  says  not,  because  the  states  cannot  impair 
the  obligation  of  contracts.  What  is  to  be  done  by  the  states  with 
regard  to  it!  Congress,  and  not  they,  have  contracted  to  pay  it.  It 
is  not  affected  by  this  clause  at  all.  I  am  still  a  warm  friend  to  the 
prohibition,  because  it  must  be  promotive  of  virtue  and  justice,  and 
preventive  of  injustice  and  fraud.  If  we  take  a  review  of  the  ca¬ 
lamities  which  have  befallen  our  reputation  as  a  people,  we  will 
find  they  have  been  produced  by  frequent  interferences  of  the  state 
legislatures  with  private  contracts.  If  you  inspect  the  great 
corner  stone  of  republicanism,  you  will  find  it  to  be  justice  and 
honor. 

I  come  now  to  what  will  be  agitated  by  the  judiciary*  They  are 
to  enforce  the  performance  of  private  contracts.  The  British  debts, 
which  are  withheld  contrary  to  treaty,  ought  to  be  paid.  Not  only 
the  law  of  nations,  but  justice  and  honor  require  that  they  be  punc¬ 
tually  discharged.  I  fear  their  payment  may  press  on  my  country, 
blit  we  must  retrench  our  seperfluities,  and  profuse  and  idle  extrava¬ 
gance,  and  become  more  economical  and  industrious.  Let  me  not 
be  suspected  of  being  interested  in  this  respect,  for  without  a  sad 
reverse  of  my  fortune,  I  shall  never  be  in  a  situation  to  be  benefitted 
by  it.  I  am  confident  the  honest  convention  of  Virginia  will  not 
oppose  it.  Can  any  soeiety  exist  without  a  firm  adherence  to  jus¬ 
tice  and  virtue!  The  federal  judiciary  cannot  intermeddle  with 
those  public  claims  without  violating  the  letter  of  the  constitution. 
Why  then  such  opposition  to  the  clause!  His  excellency  then  con¬ 
cluded,  that  he  would,  if  necessary,  display  his  feelings  more  fully 
-on  the  subject  another  time. 


440 


DEBATES. 


[Maswc, 


Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  the  debt  is  transferred 
to  congress,  but  not  the  means  of  paying  it.  They  cannot  pay  it 
any  other  way  than  according  to  the  nominal  value  :  for  they  are 
prohibited  from  making  ex  post  facto  laws;  and  it  would  be  ex  post 
facto  to  all  intent  and  purposes,  to  pay  off  creditors  with  less  than 
the  nominal  sum,  which  they  were  originally  promised.  But  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  called  to  his  aid  technical  definitions. 
He  says,  that  ex  post  facto  laws  relate  solely  to  criminal  matters. 
I  beg  leave  to  differ  from  him.  Whatever  it  may  be  at  the  bar,  or 
in  a  professional  line,  I  conceive,  that  according  to  the  common  ac¬ 
ceptation  of  the  word,  ex  post  facto  laws,  and  retrospective  laws, 
are  synonimous  terms.  Are  we  to  trust  business  of  this  sort  to 
technical  definition?  The  contrary  is  he  plain  meaning  of  the 
words.  Congress  has  no  power  to  scale  this  money.  The  states 
are  equally  precluded.  The  debt  is  transferred  without  the  means 
of  discharging  it.  Implication  will  not  do.  The  means  of  pay¬ 
ing  it  are  expressly  withheld.  When  this  matter  comes  before  the 
federal  judiciary,  they  must  determine  according  to  this  constitution. 
It  says  expressly,  that  they  shall  not  make  ex  post  facto  laws. 
Whatever  may  be  the  professional  meaning,  yet  the  general  mean¬ 
ing  of  ex  post  facto  law,  is  an  act  having  a  retrospective  operation. 
This  construction  is  agreeable  to  its  primary  etymology.  Will  it 
not  be  the  duty  of  the  federal  court  to  say,  that  such  laws  are  pro¬ 
hibited?  This  goes  to  the  destruction  and  annihilation  of  all  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  to  enrich  a  few.  Are  we  to  part  with 
every  shilling  of  our  property,  and  be  reduced  to  the  lowest  insig¬ 
nification,  to  aggrandize  a  few  speculators?  Let  me  mention  a  re¬ 
markable  effcet  this  constitution  will  have.  How  stood  our  taxes 
before  this  constitution  was  introduced?  Requisitions  were  made 
on  the  state  legislatures,  and  if  they  were  unjust,  they  could  be  re¬ 
fused.  If  we  were  called  upon  to  pay  twenty  millions,  shilling  for 
shilling,  or  at  the  rate  of  one  for  forty,  our  legislature  could  refuse 
it,  and  remonstrate  against  the  injustice  of  the  demand.  But  now 
this  could  not  be  done ;  for  direct  taxation  is  brought  home  to  us. 
The  federal  officer  collects  immediately  of  the  planters.  When  it 
withholds  the  only  possible  means  of  discharging  those  debts,  and 
by  direct  taxation  prevents  any  opposition  to  the  most  enormous  and 
unjust  demand,  where  are  you?  Is  there  a  ray  of  hope?  As  the 
law  has  never  been  in  my  possession,  if  I  err,  I  hope  to  be  excused. 
I  spoke  from  the  general  sense  of  the  word.  The  worthy  gentle¬ 
man  has  told  you,  that  the  United  States  can  be  plaintiffs,  but  never 
defendants.  If  so,  it  stands  on  very  unjust  grounds.  The  United 
States  cannot  become  at  for  any  thing  they  may  owe,  but  may  get 
what  is  due  to  them.  There  is  therefore  no  reciprocity.  The  thing 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


441 


is  so  incomprehensible,  that  it  cannot  be  explained.  As  an  express 
power  is  given  to  the  federal  court  to  take  cognizance  of  such  con¬ 
troversies,  and  to  declare  null  all  ex  post  facto  laws,  I  think  gentle¬ 
men  must  see  there  is  danger,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  guarded 
against. 

Mr  MADIbON. — Mr  Chairman,  I  did  expect  from  the  earnest¬ 
ness  he  has  expressed,  that  he  would  cast  some  light  upon  it.  But 
the  ingenuity  of  the  honorable  member  could  make  nothing  of  this 
objection.  He  argues  from  a  supposition  that  the  state  legislatures 
individually,  might  have  passed  laws  to  effect  the  value  of  the  con¬ 
tinental  debt.  I  believe  he  did  not  well  consider  this,  before  he 
hazarded  his  observations.  He  says,  that  the  United  States  being 
restrained  in  this  case,  will  be  obliged  to  pay  at  an  unjust  rate.  It 
has  been  so  clearly  explained  by  the  honorable  gentleman  over  the 
way,  that  there  could  be  no  danger,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  say 
more  on  the  subject.  The  validity  of  these  claims  will  neither  be 
increased  nor  diminished  by  this  change.  There  must  be  a  law 
made  by  congress  respecting  their  redemption.  The  states  cannot 
interfere.  Congress  will  make  such  a  regulation  as  will  be  just. 
There  is,  in  my  opinion,  but  one  way  of  scaling  improperly  and  un¬ 
justly,  and  that  is,  by  acceding  to  the  favorite  mode  of  the  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman — by  requisitions.  Is  it  to  be  presumed,  any  change 
can  be  made  in  the  system  inconsistent  with  reason  or  equity? 
Strike  the  clause  out  of  the  constitution — what  will  it  be  then?  The 
debt  will  be  as  valid  only,  as  it  was  before  the  adoption.  Gentle¬ 
men  will  not  say,  that  obligations  are  varied.  This  is  merely  a 
declaratory  clause,  that  things  are  to  exist  in  the  same  manner  as 
before. 

But  I  fear  the  very  extensive  assertions  of  the  gentleman,  may 
have  misled  the  committee.  The  whole  of  that  continental  money 
amounted  to  but  little  more  than  one  hundred  millions.  A  consid¬ 
erable  quantity  of  it  has  been  destroyed.  At  the  time  when  r.o  share 
of  it  had  been  destroyed,  the  quota  of  this  state  did  not  amount  to 
more  than  twenty-six  millions.  At  forty  for  one,  this  is  but  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars  at  most.  In  every  point  of  view  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  me  that  it  cannot  be  on  a  more  reasonable,  equitable,  or 
honorable  footing  than  it  is.  Do  gentlemen  suppose,  that  they  will 
agree  to  any  system  or  alteration,  that  will  place  them  in  a  worse 
situation  than  before?  Let  us  suppose,  this  commonwealth  was 
oossessed  of  the  same  money  that  the  northern  states  have  ;  and 
suppose  an  objection  was  made  by  them  to  its  redemption  at  its  real 
value — what  would  be  the  consequence?  We  should  pronounce 
them  to  be  unreasonable,  and  on  good  grounds.  This  case  is  so  ex- 


442  DEBATES.  [Nicholas. 

tremely  plain,  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  say  as  much  as  has  been 
said. 

Mr  MASON  was  still  convinced  of  the  rectitude  of  his  former 
opinion.  He  thought  it  might  be  put  on  a  safer  footing,  by  three 
words.  By  continuing  the  restriction  of  ex  post  facto  laws  to  crimes, 
it  would  then  stand  under  the  new  government  as  it  did  under  the 
old. 

Governor  RANDOLPH  could  not  coincide  with  the  construction 
put  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  ex  post  facto  laws.  The  tech¬ 
nical  meaning  which  confined  such  laws  solely  to  criminal  cases, 
was  followed  in  the  interpretation  of  treaties  between  nations,  and 
was  concurred  in  by  all  civilians.  The  prohibition  of  bills  of  at¬ 
tainder,  he  thought,  a  sufficient  proof,  that  ex  post  facto  laws  related 
to  criminal  cases  only,  and  that  such  was  the  idea  of  the  convention. 

The  next  clause  of  the  tenth  section  was  read. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr.  Chairman,  if  gentlemen  attend 
to  this  clause,  they  will  see  we  cannot  make  any  inspection  law  but 
what  is  subject  to  the  control  and  revision  of  congress.  Hence  gen¬ 
tlemen,  who  know  nothing  of  the  business,  will  make  rules  concern¬ 
ing  it,  which  may  be  detrimental  to  our  interests.  For  forty  years 
we  have  laid  duties  on  tobacco,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  in¬ 
spection,  and  to  raise  an  incidental  revenue  for  the  state.  Under 
this  clause,  that  incidental  revenue,  which  is  calculated  to  pay  for 
the  inspection,  and  to  defray  contingent  charges,  is  to  be  put  into 
the  federal  treasury.  But  if  any  tobacco  house  is  burnt,  we  cannot 
make  up  the  loss.  I  conceive  this  to  be  unjust  and  unreasonable. 
When  any  profit  arises  from  it,  it  goes  into  the  federal  treasury. 
But  when  there  is  any  loss  or  deficiency  from  damage,  it  cannot  be 
made  up.  Congress  are  to  make  regulations  for  our  tobacco.  Are 
men  in  the  states  where  no  tobacco  is  made,  proper  judges  of  this 
business?  They  may  perhaps  judge  as  well,  but  surely  no  better 
than  our  own  immediate  legislature,  who  are  accustomed  and  fami¬ 
liar  with  this  business.  This  is  one  of  the  most  wanton  powers  of 
the  general  government.  I  would  concede  any  power  that  was  es¬ 
sentially  necessary  for  the  interests  of  the  union;  but  this,  instead 
of  being  necessary,  will  be  extremely  oppressive. 

Mr.  GEORGE  NICHOLAS.— Mr.  Chairman,  I  consider  this 
clause  as  a  good  regulation.  It  will  be  agreed  to,  that  they  will 
impose  duties  in  the  most  impartial  manner,  and  not  throw  the  bur¬ 
dens  on  a  part  of  the  community.  Everyman  who  is  acquainted 
with  our  laws,  must  know  that  the  duties  on  tobacco  were  as  high 
as  sixteen  shillings  a  hogshead.  The  consequence  was,  that  the 
tobacco-makers  have  paid  upwards  of  20,000  pounds,  annually, 
more  than  the  other  citizens;  because  they  paid  every  other  kind  of 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


443 


tax,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  community.  We  have  every  reason 
to  believe  that  this  clause  will  prevent  injustice  and  partiality.  To¬ 
bacco-makers  will  be  benefited  by  it.  But  the  gentleman  says,  that 
our  tobacco  regulations  will  be  subject  to  the  control  of  congress, 
who  will  be  unacquainted  with  the  subject.  The  clause  says,  that 
all  such  laws  shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  and  control  of  congress. 
What  laws  are  meant  by  this!  It  means  laws  imposing  duties  on 
the  exports  of  tobacco.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  laws  made  for 
the  regulation  of  the  inspection  shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  of 
congress.  He  may  say,  that  the  laws  for  imposing  duties  on  the 
exports  of  tobacco,  and  laws  regulating  the  inspection,  must  be 
blended  in  the  same  acts.  Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  they  need 
not  be.  so;  for  the  duties  on  exports  might  be  in  one  law,  and  the 
regulation  of  the  inspection  in  another.  The  states  may  easily  make 
them  separately.  But,  he  says,  we  shall  lose  the  profit.  We  shall 
then  find  equity  in  our  legislature,  which  we  have  not  found  hereto¬ 
fore;  for,  as  they  will  lay  it  not  for  their  own  exclusive  advantages, 
but  partly  for  the  benefit  of  others,  they  will  not  be  interested  in 
laying  it  partially.  As  to  the  effect  of  ware-houses  being  burnt,  I 
differ  from  him.  A  tax  may  be  laid  to  make  up  this  loss.  Though 
the  amount  of  the  duties  go  into  the  federal  treasury,  yet  a  tax  may 
be  laid  for  that  purpose.  Is  it  not  necessary  and  just,  if  the  inspec¬ 
tion  law  obliges  the  planter  to  carry  his  tobacco  to  a  certain  place 
that  he  should  receive  a  compensation  for  the  loss,  if  it  be  destroy¬ 
ed!  The  legislature  must  defray  the  expenses  and  contingent 
charges  by  laying  a  tax  for  that  purpose;  for  such  a  tax  is  not  pro¬ 
hibited.  The  net  amounts  only  go  into  the  federal  treasury,  after 
paying  the  expenses.  Gentlemen  must  be  pleased  with  this  part, 
especially  those  who  are  tobacco  makers. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON  replied,  that  the  state  legislatures  could 
make  no  law  but  what  would  come  within  the  general  control  given 
to  congress;  and  that  the  regulation  of  the  inspection  and  the  impo¬ 
sition  of  duties,  must  be  inseparably  blended  together. 

Mr.  MADISON.— Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  take  a  view  of  the  rela¬ 
tive  situation  of  the  states.  Some  states  export  the  produce  of  other 
states.  Virginia  exports  the  produce  of  North  Carolina;  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  those  of  New  Jersey  and  Delaware,  and  Rhode  Island  those 
of  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts.  The  exporting  states  wished  to 
retain  the  power  of  laying  duties  on  exports,  to  enable  them  to  pay 
the  expenses  incurred.  The  states  whose  produce  is  exported  by 
other  states,  were  extremely  jealous,  lest  a  contribution  should  be 
raised  of  them  by  the  exporting  states,  by  laying  heavy  duties  on 
their  commodities.  If  this  this  clause  be  fully  considered,  it  will 
be  found  to  be  more  consistent  with  justice  and  equity  than  any  other 


444 


DEBATES. 


[Mason. 


practicable  mode;  for  if  the  states  had  the  exclusive  imposition  of 
duties  on  exports,  they  might  raise  a  heavy  contribution  of  the  other 
states,  for  their  own  exclusive  emoluments.  The  honorable  member 
who  spoke  in  defence  of  the  clause,  has  fairly  represented  it.  As  to 
the  reimbursement  of  the  loss  that  may  be  sustained  by  individuals, 
a  tax  may  be  laid  on  tobacco  when  brought  to  the  warehouses,  for 
that  purpose.  The  sum  arising  therefrom  may  be  appropriated  to  it 
consistently  with  the  clause;  for  it  only  says,  that  “  the  nett  produce 
of  all  duties  and  impost,  laid  by  any  state  on  imports  or  exports, 
shall  be  for  the  use  ot  the  treasury  of  the  United  States,”  which 
necessarily  implies,  that  all  contingent  charges  shall  have  been  pre¬ 
viously  paid. 

The  first  section  of  the  second  article  was  then  read. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  not  a  more 
important  article  in  the  constitution  than  this.  The  great  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  responsibility  in  republicanism  is  here  sapped. 
The  president  is  elected  without  rotation.  It  may  be  said  that  a  new 
election  may  remove  him,  and  place  another  in  his  stead.  If  we 
judge  from  the  experience  of  all  other  countries,  and  even  our  own, 
■we  may  conclude,  that  as  the  president  of  the  United  States  may  be 
re-elected,  so  he  will.  How  is  it  in  every  government  where  rota¬ 
tion  is  not  required!  Is  there  a  single  instance  of  a  great  man  not 
being  re-elected!  Our  governor  is  obliged  to  return,  after  a  given 
period,  to  a  private  station.  It  is  so  in  most  of  the  states.  This 
president  will  be  elected  time  after  time:  he  will  be  continued  iri 
office  for  life.  If  we  wish  to  change  him,  the  great  powers  in 
Europe  will  notallow  us. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  my  colleague  in  the  late  federal  con¬ 
vention,  mentions  with  applause,  those  parts  of  which  he  had  ex¬ 
pressed  his  disapprobation,  he  says  not  a  word.  If  I  am  mistaken, 
let  me  be  put  right.  I  shall  not  make  use  qf  his  name;  but  in  the  course 
of  this  investigation,  I  shall  use  the  arguments  of  that  gentleman 
against  it. 

Will  not  the  great  powers  of  Europe,  as  France  and  Great  Britain, 
be  interested  in  having  a  friend  in  the  president  of  the  United  States; 
and  will  they  not  be  more  interested  in  his  election,  than  in  that  of 
the  king  of  Poland1*  The  people  of  Poland  have  a  right  to  displace 
their  king.  But  do  they  ever  do  it!  No.  Prussia  and  Russia,  and 
other  European  powers,  would  not  suffer  it.  This  clause  will  open  a 
door  to  the  dangers  and  misfortunes,  which  the  people  of  Poland 
undergo.  The  powers  of  Europe  will  interpose,  and  we  shall  have 
a  civil  war  in  the  bowels  of  our  country,  and  be  subject  to  all  the 
horrors  and  calamities  of  an  elective  monarchy.  This  very  execu¬ 
tive  officer  may,  by  consent  of  congress,  receive  a  stated  pension 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


445 


from  European  potentates.  This  is  an  idea  altogether  new  in 
America.  It  is  not  many  years  ago,  since  the  revolution,  that  a 
foreign  power  offered  emoluments  to  persons  holding  offices  under 
our  government.  It  will,  moreover,  be  difficult  to  know,  whether 
he  receives  emoluments  from  foreign  powers  or  not.  The  electors, 
who  are  to  meet  in  each  state  to  vote  for  him,  may  be  easily  influ¬ 
enced.  To  prevent  the  certain  evils  of  attempting  to  elect  a  new 
president,  it  will  be  necessary  to  continue  the  old  one.  The  only 
way  to  alter  this,  would  be  to  render  him  ineligible  after  a  certain 
number  of  years,  and  then  no  foreign  nation  would  interfere  to  keep 
in  a  man  who  was  utterly  ineligible.  Nothing  is  so  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  a  republican  government,  as  a  periodical  rotation. 
Nothing  so  strongly  impels  a  man  to  regard  the  interest  of  his  con¬ 
stituents,  as  the  certainty  of  returning  to  the  general  mass  of  the 
people,  from  whence  he  was  taken,  where  he  must  participate  their 
burdens.  It  is  a  great  defect  in  the  senate,  that  they  are  not  ineli¬ 
gible  at  the  end  of  six  years.  The  biennial  exclusion  of  one-third 
of  them,  will  have  no  effect,  as  they  can  be  re-elected.  Some  stated 
time  ought  to  be  fixed,  when  the  president  ought  to  be  reduced  to  a 
private  station.  I  should  be  contented  that  he  might  be  elected  for 
eight  years;  but  I  would  wish  him  to  be  capable  of  holding  the- 
office  only  eight  years,  out  of  twelve  or  sixteen  years.  But  as  it 
now  stands,  he  may  continue  in  office  for  life;  or  in  other  words,  it 
will  be  an  elective  monarchy. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr.  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman 
last  up  says,  that  I  do  not  mention  the  parts  to  which  I  object.  I 
have  hitherto  mentioned  my  objections  with  freedom  and  candour. 
But,  Sir,  I  considered  that  our  critical  situation  rendered  adoption 
necessary,  were  it  even  more  defective  than  it  is.  I  observed,  that 
if  opinions  ought  to  lead  the  committee  on  one  side,  they  ought  on 
the  other.  Every  gentleman  who  has  turned  his  thoughts  to  the 
subject  of  politics,  and  has  considered  of  the  most  eligible  mode  of 
republican  government,  agrees  that  the  greatest  difficulty  arises 
from  the  executive,  as  to  the  time  of  his  election,  mode  of  his  elec¬ 
tion,  quantum  of  power,  &c.  I  will  acknowledge,  that  at  one  stage 
of  this  business,  I  had  embraced  the  idea  of  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man,  that  the  re-eligibility  of  the  president  was  improper.  But  I 
will  acknowledge,  that  on  a  further  consideration  of  the  subject, 
ami  attention  to  the  lights  which  were  thrown  upon  it  by  others,  I 
altered  in  ;  opinion  of  the  limitation  of  his  eligibility.  When  we 
consider  the  advantages  arising  to  os  from  it,  we  cannot  object  to  it. 
That  which  has  produced  my  opinion  against  the  limitation  of  his 
eligibility,  is  this — that  it  renders  him  more  independent  in  his 
place,  and  more  solicitous  of  promoting  the  interest  of  his  constitei- 


446 


DEBATES. 


[Mason. 


ents;  for,  unless  you  put  it  in  his  power  to  be  re-elected,  instead  of 
being-  attentive  to  their  interests,  he  will  lean  to  the  augmentation 
of  his  private  emoluments.  This  subject  will  admit  of  high  colour¬ 
ing  and  plausible  arguments;  but  on  considering  it  attentively  and 
coolly,  I  believe  it  will  be  found  less  exceptionable  than  any  other 
mode.  The  mode  of  election  here  excludes  that  faction  which  is 
productive  of  those  hostilities  and  confusion  in  Poland.  It  renders 
it  unnecessary  and  impossible  to  foreign  force  or  aid  to  interpose. 
The  electors  must  be  elected  by  the  people  at  large.  To  procure 
his  re-election,  his  influence  must  be  co-extensive  with  the  continent. 
And  there  can  be  no  combination  between  they  electors,  as  they  elect 
him  on  the  same  day  in  every  state.  When  this  is  the  case,  how 
can  foreign  influence  or  intrigues  enter!  There  is  no  reason  to  con¬ 
clude,  from  the  experience  of  these  states,  that  he  will  be  continu¬ 
ally  re-elected.  There  have  been  several  instances  where  officers 
have  been  displaced,  where  they  were  re-eligible.  This  has  been 
the  case  with  the  executive  of  Massachusetts,  and  I  believe  of  New 
Hampshire.  It  happens  from  the  mutation  of  sentiments,  though 
the  officers  be  good. 

^ There  is  another  provision  against  the  danger  mentioned  by  the 
honorable  member,  of  the  president  receiving  emoluments  from 
foreign  powers.  If  discovered,  he  may  be  impeached.  If  he  be 
not  impeached,  he  may  be  displaced  at  the  end  of  the  four  years. 
By  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article,  “  No  person  holding  an  office 
of  profit  or  trust,  shall  accept  of  any  present  or  emolument  whatever, 
from  any  foreign  power,  without  the  consent  of  the  representatives 
of  the  people;”  and  by  the  first  section  of  the  second  article,  his 
compensation  is  neither  to  be  increased  or  diminished,  during  the 
time  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected;  and  he  shall  not,  during 
that  period,  receive  any  emolument  from  the  United  States  or  any 
of  them.  I  consider,  therefore,  that  he  is  restrained  from  receiving 
any  present  or  emoluments  whatever.  It  is  impossible  to  guard 
better  against  corruption.  The  honorable  member  seems  to  think, 
that  he  may  hold  his  office  without  being  re-elected.  He  cannot 
hold  it  over  four  years,  unless  he  be  re-elected,  any  more  than  if  he 
were  prohibited.  As  to  forwarding  and  transmitting  the  certificates 
of  the  electors,  I  think  the  regulation  as  good  as  could  be  provided. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr.  Chairman,  the  vice  president  ap¬ 
pears  to  me  to  be  not  only  an  unnecessary  but  dangerous  officer.  He 
is,  contrary,  to  the  usual  course  of  parliamentary  proceedings,  to  be 
president  of  the  senate.  The  state  from  which  he  comes  may  have 
two  votes,  when  the  others  will  have  but  one.  Besides  the  legisla¬ 
tive  and  executive  are  hereby  mixed  and  incorporated  together.  I 
cannot  at  this  distance  of  time  foresee  the  consequences ;  but  1 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


447 


think,  that  in  the  course  of  human  affairs,  he  will  be  made  a  tool  of 
in  order  to  bring  about  his  own  interest,  and  aid  in  overturning  the 
liberties  of  his  country. — There  is  another  part  which  I  disapprove 
of,  but  which  perhaps  I  do  not  understand.  “  In  case  of  removal  cf 
the  president  from  office,  or  of  his  death,  resignation,  or  inability  to 
discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  same  shall 
devolve  on  the  vice  president,  and  the  congress  may  by  law  provide 
for  the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  inability  both  ot  the 
president  and  vice  president,  declaring  what  officer  shall  then  act  as 
president,  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  disabili¬ 
ty  be  removed,  or  a  president  shall  be  elected.”  The  power  of 
Congress  is  right  and  proper  so  far  as  it  enables  them  to  provide 
what  officer  shall  act,  in  case  both  the  president  and  vice-president 
be  dead  or  disabled.  But  gentlemen  ought  to  take  notice  that  the 
elction  of  this  officer  is  only  for  four  years.  There  is  no  provision 
for  a  speedy  election  for  another  president,  when  the  former  is  dead 
or  removed.  The  influence  of  the  vice  president,  may  prevent  the 
election  of  the  president.  But  perhaps  I  may  be  mistaken. 

Mr  MADISON. — Mr  Chairman,  I  think  there  are  some  peculi¬ 
ar  advantages  incident  to  this  office,  which  recommend  it  to  us. 
There  is  in  the  first  place  a  great  probability  this  officer  will  be  ta¬ 
ken  from  one  of  the  largest  states,  and  if  so,  the  circumstance  of  his 
having  an  eventual  vote  will  be  so  far  favorable.  The  consideration 
which  recommends  it  to  me, is,  that  he  will  be  the  choice  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  at  large. — There  are  to  be  ninety-one  electors,  each  of  whom  has 
two  votes:  if  he  have  one  fourth  of  the  whole  number  of  votes,  he 
is  elected  vice-president.  There  is  much  more  propriety  in  giving 
this  office  to  a  person  chosen  by  the  people  at  large,  than  to  one  of 
the  senate  who  is  only  the  choice  of  the  legislature  of  one  state. — 
His  eventual  vote  is  an  advantage  too  obvious  to  comment  upon. 
I  differ  from  the  honorable  member  in  the  case  which  enables  con¬ 
gress  to  make  a  temporary  appointment.  When  the  president  and 
vice-president  die,  the  election  of  another  president  will  immediate¬ 
ly  take  place,  and  suppose  it  would  not,  all  that  congress  could  do, 
woold  be  to  make  an  appointment  between  the  expiration  of  the 
four  years  and  the  last  election,  and  to  continue  only  to  such  expi¬ 
ration.  This  can  rarely  happen.  This  power  continues  the  gov¬ 
ernment  in  motion,  and  is  well  guarded. 

Wednesday,  the  18 th  of  June ,  1788. 

The  first  Section,  second  Art.  still  under  consideration. 

Mr.  MONROE,  after  a  brief  exordium,  in  which  he  insisted,  that 
on  the  judicious  organization  of  the  executive  power,  the  security  of 
onr  interest  and  happiness  greatly  depended;  that  in  the  construction 
of  this  part  of  the  government  we  should  be  cautious  in  avoiding 


448 


DEBATES. 


[Monro  e  «. 

the  defects  of  other  governments,  and  that  our  circumspection  should 
be  commensurate  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated, proceeded  as 
follows: — The  president  ought  to  act  under  the  strongest  impulses 
of  rewards  and  punishments  which  are  the  strongest  incentives  to 
human  actions.  There  are  two  ways  of  securing  this  point.  He 
ought  to  depend  on  the  people  of  America  for  his  appointment  and 
continuance  in  office:  he  ought  also  to  be  responsible  in  an  equal  de¬ 
gree  to  all  the  states;  and  to  be  tried  by  dispassionate  judges;  his 
responsibility  ought  further  to  be  direct  and  immediate.  Let  us 
consider  in  the  first  place  then,  how  far  he  is  dependent  on  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  America.  He  is  to  be  elected  by  electors,  in  a  manner  per¬ 
fectly  dissatisfactory  to  my  mind.  I  believe  that  he  will  owe  his 
election,  in  fact,  to  the  state  governments,  and  not  to  the  peopie  at 
large.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  congress  have  it  in  their  power 
to  appoint  the  time  of  choosing  the  electors,  and  of  electing  the 
president.  Is  it  not  presumable  they  will  appoint  the  times  of  cho- 
sing  the  electors,  and  electing  the  president,  at  a  considerable  dis¬ 
tance  from  each  other,  so  as  to  give  an  opportunity  to  the  electors  to 
forma  combination!  If  they  know  that  such  a  man  as  they  wish, 
for  instance,  the  actual  president,  cannot  possibly  be  elected  by  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed,  yet  if  they  can 
prevent  the  election,  by  such  majority,  of  any  one  they  disapprove 
of,  and  if  they  can  procure  such  a  number  of  votes  as  will  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  make  their  favorite  one  of  the  five  highest  on  the  list,  they 
may  ultimately  carry  the  election  into  the  general  congress,  where 
the  votes  in  choosing  him  shall  be  taken  by  states, each  state  having 
one  vote.  Let  us  see  howTar  this  is  compatible  with  the  security 
of  republicanism.  Although  this  state  is  to  have  ten,  and  Massa¬ 
chusetts  eight  representatives,  and  Delaware  and  Rhode  Island  are 
to  have  but  one  each,  yet  the  vote  are  to  be  by  states  only.  The 
conseqence  will  be,  thet  a  majority  of  the  states,  and  these  consist¬ 
ing  of  the  smallest,  may  elect  him;  this  will  give  an  advantage  to 
the  small  states.  He  will  depend,  therefore,  on  the  states  for  his 
i e-election  and  continuance  in  office,  and  not  on  the  people.  Does 
it  not  bear  the  complexion  of  the  late  confederation!  He  will  con. 
duct  himself  in  accommodation  to  them,  since  by  them  he  is  chosen, 
and  may  be  again.  If  he  accommodates  himself  to  the  interest  of 
particular  states,  will  they  not  be  obliged  by  state  policy  to  support 
him  afterwards  !  Let  me  enquire  into  his  responsibility  if  he  does 
not  depend  on  the  people.  To  whom  is  he  responsible  !  To  the 
senate,  his  own  council.  If  he  makes  a  treaty,  bartering  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  his  country,  by  whom  is  he  to  be  tried!  By  the  very  persons 
who  advised  him  to  perpetrate  the  act.  Is  this  any  security!  I  am 
persuaded  that  the  gentleman  who  will  be  the  first  elected,  may 
continue  in  the  office  for  life. 


Geayson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


449 


The  situation  of  the  United  States,  as  it  applies  to  the  European 
states  demands  attention.  We  may  hold  the  balance  among-  those 
states* — -Their  western  territories  are  contiguous  to  us.  What  we 
may  do  without  any  offensive  operations,  may  have  considerable  in¬ 
fluence.  Will  they  not  then  endeavor  to  influence  his  general  coun¬ 
cils'?  May  we  not  suppose  that  they  will  endeavor  to  attach  him  to 
their  interest,  and  support  him,  in  order  to  make  him.serve  their  pur¬ 
poses'?  If  this  be  the  case,  does  not.  the  mode  of  election  present 
■a  favorite  opportunity  to  continue  in  office  the  person  that  shall  be 
president?  I  am  persuaded  they  may,  by  theirpower  and  intrigues, 
influence  his  re-election.  There  being  nothing  to  prevent  his  cor¬ 
ruption,  but  his  virtue,  which  is  but  precarious,  we  have  not  suffi¬ 
cient  security.  If  there  be  a  propriety  in  giving  him  a  right  of 
making  leagues,  he  ought  not  to  be  connected  with  the  senate.  If 
the  senate  have  a  right  to  make  leagues,  there  ought  to  be  a  majori¬ 
ty  of  the  states. 

The  Vice  President  is  an  unnecessary  officer.  I  can  see  no  rea¬ 
son  for  such  an  officer.  The  senate  might  of  their  own  body  electa 
president,  who  would  have  no  dangerous  influence.  He  is  to  suc¬ 
ceed  the  president,  in  case  of  removal,  disability,  &c.,  and  is  to 
have  the  casting  vote  in  the  senate.  This  gives  an  undue  advan- 
tage  to  the  state  he  comes  from,  and  will  render  foreign  powers  de¬ 
sirous  of  securing  his  favor,  to  obtain  which  they  will  exert  them¬ 
selves  in  his  behalf.  I  am  persuaded  that  the  advantage  of  his  in¬ 
formation  will  not  counterbalance  the  disadvantages  attending  his 
office. 


The  president  might  be  elected  by  the  people,  dependent  upon 
them,  and  responsible  for  mal-administration.  As  this  is  not  the 
ease,  I  must  disapprove  of  this  clause  in  its  present  form. 

Mr  GRAYSON. — Mr  Chairman,  one  great  objection  with  me  is 
this.  If  we  advert  to  this  democratical,  anstocratical,  or  executive 
branch,  we  will  And  their  powers  are  perpetually  varying  and  fluc¬ 
tuating  throughout  the  whole.  Perhaps  the  democratic  branch 
would  be  well  constructed  were  it  not  for  this  defect.  The  execu¬ 
tive  is  still  worse,  in  this  respect,  than  the  democratic  branch.  He 
is  to  be  elected  by  a  number  of.  electors  in  the  country ;  but  the 
principle  is  changed,  when  no  person  has  a  majorittr  of  the  whole 
number  of  electors  appointed,  or  when  more  than  one  have  such  a 
majority,  and  have  an  equal  number  of  votes,  for  then  the  lower 
house  is  to  vote  by  states.  It  is  thus  changing  throughout  the  whole. 
It  seems  rather  founded  on  accident,  than  any  principle  of  govern¬ 
ment  I  ever  heard  of.  We  know  that  there  scarcely  ever  vras  an 
election  of  such  an  officer,  without  the  interposition  ci  foreign  pow¬ 


ers. 


Two  causes  prevail  to  make  them  iutermetlchc.in 


such 


DEBATES. 


[Grayson.- 


v  450 

one  i9  to  preserve  the  balance  of  power,  the  other  to  preserve  their 
trade.  These  causes  have  produced  interferences  of  foreign  po  wers 
in  the  election  of  the  king  of  Poland.  All  the  great  powers  of  Eu- 
rope  have  interfered  in  an  election  which  took  place  not  very  long 
ago,  and  would  not  let  the  people  choose  for  themselves.  W  e  know 
how  much  the  powers  of  Europe  have  interfered  with  Sweden. 
Since  the  death  of  Charles  the  Xllth,  that  country  has  been  a  re¬ 
publican  government.  Some  powers  were  willing  it  should  be  so  : 
some  were  willing  her  imbecility  should  continue  :  others  wished 
the  contrary :  and  at  length  the  court  of  France  brought  about  a 
revolution,  which  converted  it  into  an  absolute  government.  Car? 
America  be  free  from  these  interferences'?  France,  after  losing  Hol¬ 
land,  will  wish  to  make  America  entirely  her  own.  Great  Britain 
will  wish  to  increase  her  influence  by  a  still  closer  connection.  It 
is  the  interest  of  Spain,  from  the  contiguity  of  her  possessions  in 
the  western  hemisphere  t.o  the  United  States,  to  be  in  an  intimate  con¬ 
nection  with  them,  and  influence  their  deliberations,  if  possible.  I 
hink  we  have  every  thing  to  apprehend  from  such  interferences. 
It  is  highly  probable  the  president  will  be  continued  in  office  for 
life.  To  gain  his  favor  they  will  support  him.  Consider  the  means 
of  importance  he  will  have  by  creating  officers.  If  he  has  a  good 
understanding  with  the  senate,  they  will  join  to  prevent  a  discovery 
of  his  misdeeds. 

Whence  comes  this  extreme  confidence,  that  we  disregard  the  ex¬ 
ample  of  ancient  and  modern  nations'?  We  find  that  aristocracies 
never  invested  their  offices  with  such  immense  powers.  Rome  had 
not  only  an  aristocratical,  but  also  a  demoeratical  branch  ;  yet  the 
consuls  were  in  office  only  two  years.  This  quadrennial  power 
cannot  be  justified  by  ancient  history.  There  is  hardly  an  instance 
where  a  republic  trusted  its  executive  so  long  with  much  power,  nor 
is  it  warranted  by  modern  republics.  The  delegation  of  power  is  in 
most  of  them  only  for  one  year. 

When  you  have  a  strong  demoeratical  and  a  strong  aristocratical 
branch,  you  may  have  a  strong  executive.  But  when  those  are 
weak,  the  balance  will  not  be  preserved,  if  you  give  the  executive 
extensive  powers  for  so  long  a  time.  As  this  government  is  organ¬ 
ized,  it  wrould  be  dangerous  to  trust  the  president  with  such  powers. 
How  will  you  punish  him  if  he  abuse  his  power?  Will  you  call 
him  before  the  senate?  They  are  his  councellors  and  partners  in 
crimes.  Where  are  your  checks?  We  ought  to  be  extremely  cau¬ 
tious  in  this  country.  If  ever  the  government.be  changed,  it  will 
probably  be  into  a  despotism.  The  first  object  in  England  \va9  to 
destroy  the  monarchy  :  but  the  aristocratic  branch  restored  him,  and 
of  course  the  government  was  organized  on  its  ancient  principles. 


Grayson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


451* 


Bat  were  a  revolution  to  happen  here,  there  would  be  no  means  of 
restoring  the  government  to  its  former  organization.  This  is  a  cau¬ 
tion  to  us  not  to  trust  extensive  powers.  I  have  an  extreme  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  mode  of  his  election.  I  presume  the  seven  eastern  states 
will  always  elect  him.  As  he  is  vested  with  the  power  of  making 
treaties,  and  as  there  is  a  material  distinction  between  carrying  and 
productive  states,  the  former  will  be  disposed  to  have  him  them¬ 
selves.  He  will  accommodate  himself  to  their  interests  in  forming 
treaties,  and  they  will  continue  him  perpetually  in  office.  Thus 
mutual  interest  will  lead  them  reciprocally  to  support  one  another. 
It  will  be  a  government  of  a  faction,  and  this  observation  will  ap¬ 
ply  to  every  part  of  it.  For,  having  a  majority,  they  may  do  what 
they  please.  I  have  made  an  estimate  which  shews  what  facility 
they  will  be  able  to  re-elect  him.  The  number  of  electors  is  equal 
to  the  number  of  representatives  and  senators,  viz:  ninety-one. 
They  are  to  vote  for  two  persons.  They  give  therefore  one  hundred 
and  eighty-two  votes.  Let  there  be  forty-five  votes  for  four  differ¬ 
ent  candidates,  and  two  for  the  president.  He  is  one  of  the  five 
highest,  if  he  have  but  two  votes,  which  he  may  easily  purchase. 
2n  this  ease,  by  the  third  clause,  of  the  first  section,  of  the  second 
-  article,  the  election  is  to  be  by  the  representatives,  according  to 

states:  Let  New  Hampshire  be  for  him,  a  majority  of  its 

3  representatives  is  -2 

Rhode  Island,  .-  *  1  -  -  -  -  1 

Connecticut,  r  -  5  ^  -  *■  -3 

New  Jersey,  -  4  r  *'  - 

Delaware,  -  I 

Georgia,  *  -  3  j*  •  * 

North  Carolina,  -  -  5  *■ 


-  3 

-  I 

-  2 
*  3 


A  majority  of  seven  states  is  -  -  I3 

Thus  the  majority  of  seven  states  is  but  15,  while  the  minority 
amounts  to  50.  The  total  number  of  voices,  91  electors,  and  65 

representatives,  is  15fi.  . 

Voices  in  favor  of  the  president,  are  two  state  electors,  and  15 

representatives,  which  17 
are  in  all  »  3  9" 

So  that  the  president  may  be  re-elected  by  the  voices  of  17againstl39, 

It  may  be  said,  that  this  is  an  extravagant  case,  and  will  never 
happen.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  often  happen,  A  person  who  is  a 
favorite  of  .congress,  if  lie  gets  but  two  votes  of  electors,  may,  by 
the  subsequent  choice  of  15  representatives,  be  elected  president. 
Surely  the  possibility  of  such  a  case  ought  to  be  excluded,  I  shall 
postpone  mentioning  in  what  manner  he  ought  to  be  elected,  till  vv§ 
come  to  offer  amendments, 


DEBATES, 


[Masox, 


•f52 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  contented,  that  this  inode  of  election 
was  a  mere  deception — a  mere  ignus  fatuu's  on  the  American  people, 
and  thrown  out  to  make  them  believe  they  were  to  choose  him  ; 
whereas  it  would  not  be  once  out  of  fifty  that  he  would  be  chosen 
by  them  in  the  first  instance,  because  a  majority  of  the  whole  num¬ 
ber  of  votes  was  required.  If  the  localties  of  the  states  were  con¬ 
sidered,  and  the  probable  diversity  of  the  opinions  of  the  people  at¬ 
tended  to,  he  thought  it  would  be  found  that  so  many  persons  wbuld 
be  voted  for,  that  there  seldom  or  never  could  be  a  majority  in  favor 
of  one,  except  one  great  name,  who  he  believed  would  be  unani¬ 
mously  elected.  He  then  continued  thus. — A  majority  of  the  whole 
number  of  electors  is  necessary  to  elect  the  president..  It  is  not  the 
greatest  number  of  votes  that  is  required,  but  a  majority  of  the  whole 
number  of  electors,  [f  there  be  more  than  one  having  such  ma¬ 
jority,  and  an  equal  number,  one  of  them  is  to  be  chosen  by  ballot 
ot  the  house  of  representatives.  But  if  no  one  have  a  majority  of 
the  actual  number  of  electors  appointed,  how  is  he  to-  be  chosen? 
From  the  five  highest  on  the  list,  by  ballot  of  the  lower  house,  and 
the  votes  to  be  taken  by  states.  I  conceive  he  ought  to  be  chosen 
from  the  two  highest  on  the  list.  This  would  be  simple  and  easy; 
then  indeed  the  people  would  have  some  agency  in  the  election. 
But  when  it  is  extended  to  the  five  highest,  a  person  having  a  very, 
small  number  of  votes  may  be  elected.  This  will  almost  constantly 
happen.  The  states  may  choose  the  man  in  whom  they  have  mo9? 
confidence.  This,  in  my  opinion,  is  a  very  considerable  defect. 
The  people  will  in  reality  have  no  hand  in  the  election. 

It  has  been  wittily  observed,  that  the  constitution  has  married  the 
president  and  senate— has  made  them  man  and  wife.  I  believe  the 
consequence  that  generally  results  from  marriage  will  happen  here. 
They  will  be  continually  supporting  and  aiding  each  other :  they 
will  always  consider  their  interest  as  united.  We  know  the  advan¬ 
tage  the  few  have  over  the  many.  They  can  with  facility  act  in 
concert,  and  on  an  uniform  system  :  they  may  join,  scheme,  and 
plot,  against  the  people  without  any  chance  of  detection.  The  se¬ 
nate  and  president  will  form  a  combination  that  cannot  be  prevent¬ 
ed  by  the  representatives.  The  executive  and  legislative  powers 
thus  connected,  will  destroy  all  balances :  this  would  have  been 
prevented  by  a  constitutional  council  to  aid  the  president  in  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  his  office,  vesting  the  senate  at  the  same  time  with  power 
of  impeaching  them.  Then  we  should  have  real  responsibility.  In 
its  present  form,  the  guilty  try  themselves.  The  president  is  tried i 
by  his  counsellors.  He  is  not  removed  from  office  during  his  trial. 
When  he  is  arrainged  for  treason  he  has  the  command  of  the  army 
and  navy,  and  may  surround  the  senate  with  30,000  troops.  It 


Mason.] 


V  IRGIN  A. 


brings  to  my  recollection  the  remarkable  trial  of  Milo  at  Rome.  We 
may  expect  to  see  similar  instances  here.  But,  I  suppose,  that  the 
cure  for  all  evils — the  virtue  and  integrity  of  our  representatives, 
will  be  thought  a  sufficient  security.  On  this  great  and  important 
subject,  I  am  one  of  those  (and  ever  shall  be)  who  object  to  it. 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  making 
a  few  observations,  which  may  place  this  in  such  a  light  as  may  ob¬ 
viate  objections.  It  is  observed,  that  none  of  the  honorable  mem' 
bers  oojecting  to  this,  have  pointed  out  the  right  mode  of  election* 
It  was  lound  difficult  in  the  convention,  and  will  be  found  so  by  any 
gentleman  who  wil  take  the  liberty  of  delineating  a  mode  of  elect¬ 
ing  the  president,  that  would  exclude  those  inconveniences  wrhich 
they  apprehend.  I  would  not  contend  against  some  of  the  principles 
laid  down  by  some  gentlemen  if  the  interests  of  some  states  only 
were  to  be  consulted.  But  there  is  a  great  diversity  of  interests. 
The  choice  of  the  people  ought  to  be  attended  to.  I  have  found  no 
better  way  of  selecting  the  man  in  whom  they  place  the  highest 
confidence,  than  that  delineated  in  the  plan  of  the  convention — nor 
has  the  gentleman  told  us.  Perhaps  it  will  be  found  impracticable 
to  elect  him  by  the  immediate  suffrages  of  the  people.  Difficulties 
would  arise  from  the  extent  and  population  of  the  states.  Instead 
of  this,  the  people  chose  the  electors. 

This  can  be  done  with  ease  and  convenience,  and  will  render  the 
choice  more  judicious.  As  to  the  eventual  voting  by  states,  it  has 
my  approbation.  The  lesser  states,  and  some  large  states,  will  be 
generally  pleased  by  that  mode.  The  deputies  from  the  small 
states  argued,  (and  there  is  some  force  in  their  reasoning)  that  when 
the  people  voted,  the  large  states  evidently  had  the  advantage  over 
the  rest,  and  without  varying  the  mode,  the  interest  of  the  little 
states  might  be  neglected  or  sacrificed.  Here  is  a  compromise. — 
For  in  the  eventual  election,  the  small  states  will  have  the  advan¬ 
tage.  In  so  extensive  a  country,  it  is  probable  that  many  persons 
will  be  voted  for,  and  the  lowest  of  the  five  highest  on  the  list  may 
not  be  so  inconsiderable  as  he  supposes.  With  respect  to  the  pos¬ 
sibility,  that  a  small  number  of  votes  may  decide  his  election,  I  do 
not  know  how,  nor  do  I  think  that  a  bare  calculation  of  possibility 
ought  to  govern  us. — One  honorable  gentleman  has  said,  that  the 
eastern  states  may,  in  the  eventual  election,  chose  him.  But  in  the 
extravagant  calculation  he  has  made,  he  has  been  obliged  to  associ¬ 
ate  North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  with  the  five  smallest  northern 
States.  There  can  be  no  union  of  interest  or  sentiments  between 
states  so  differently  situated. 

The  honorable  member  last  up  has  committed  a  mistake  in  saying 


DEBATES. 


[Mason. 


454 

there  must  be  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed. 
A  majority  of  votes,  equal  to  a  majority  of  the  electors  appointed,, 
will  be  sufficient.  Forty-six  is  a  majority  of  ninety  one,  and  will 
suffice  to  elect  the  president. 

Mr  MASON  arose,  and  insisted  that  the  person  having  the 
greatest  number  of  votes  would  not  be  elected,  unless  such  majority 
consisted  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed  :  that  it  would 
rarely  happen  that  any  one  would  have  such  a  majority,  and  as  he 
was  then  to  be  chosen  from  the  five  highest  on  the  list,  his  election 
was  entirely  taken  from  the  people. 

Mr  MADISON  expressed  astonishment  at  the  construction  of  the 
honorable  member,  and  insisted,  that  nothing  was  necessary  but  a 
number  of  votes  equal  to  a  majority  of  the  electors,  which  was  forty- 
six.  For  the  clause  expressly  said,  that  “the  person  having  the 
greatest  nnmber  of  votes  shall  be  president,  if  such  a  number  be  a 
majority  of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed.”  Each  had 
two  votes,  because  one  vote  was  intended  for  the  Vice-President. 
I  am  surprised,  continued  Mr  Madison,  that  the  honorable  member 
has  not  pointed  out  a  more  proper  mode,  since  he  objects  to  this. 

But  the  honorable  gentleman  tells  us,  that  the  president  and  sen¬ 
ate  will  be  in  alliance  against  the  representatives,  and  that  from  the 
advantage  of  the  few  over  the  many,  they  may  seduce,  or  ovei-rule 
the  representatives.  But  if  this  be  the  case, how  can  he  contend  for  the 
augmentation  of  the  number  of  the  latter!  For  the  more  you  increase 
their  number,  the  more  danger  in  the  disproportion.  The  diversity 
of  circumstances,  situation  and  extent  of  the  different  states,  will 
render  previous  combination,  with  respect  to  the  election  of  the 
president,  impossible. 

The  first  clause  of  the  second  section,  was  read. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON,  animadverting  on  the  magnitude  of  the 
powers  of  the  president,  was  alarmed  at  the  additional  power  of 
commanding  the  army  in  person.  He  admitted  the  propriety  of  his 
being  commander  in  chief,  so  far  as  to  give  orders  and  have  a  gen¬ 
eral  superintendency  :  but  he  thought  it  would  be  dangerous  to  let 
him  command  in  person  without  any  restraint,  as  he  might  make  a 
bad  use  of  it.  He  was  then  clearly  of  opinion,  that  the  consent  of 
a  majority  of  both  houses  of  congress  should  be  required  before  ho 
could  take  the  command  in  person.  If  at  any  time  it  should  be 
necessary  that  he  should  take  the  personal  command,  either  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  superior  abilities,  or  other  cause,  then  congress  would 
agree  to  it :  and  all  dangers  would  be  obviated  by  requiring  their 
eonsent.  He  called  to  gentlemen’s  recollection,  the  extent  of  what 
the  late  commander  in  chief  might  have  done,  from  his  great  abili- 


VIRGINIA. 


Nicholas.] 


455 

9 


ties,  and  the  strong  attachment  of  both  officers  and  soldiers  towards 
him,  if,  instead  of  being  disinterested,  he  had  been  an  ambitious 
man.  So  disinterested  and  amiable  a  character  as  General  Washing¬ 
ton  might  never  command  again.  The  possibility  of  danger  ought 
to  be  guarded  against.  Although  he  did  not  disapprove  of  the 
president’s  consultation  with  the  principal  executive  officers,  yet  he 
objected  to  the  want  of  an  executive  council,  which  he  conceived  to 
be  neeessaiy  tOTany  regular  free  government.  There  being  none 
such,  he  apprehended  a  council  would  arise  out  of  the  senate,  which, 
for  want  of  real  responsibility,  he  thought  dangerous.  You  will 
please,  says  he,  to  recollect  that  removal  from  offices,  and  future 
disqualifications  to  hold  any  offices,  are  the  only  consequences  of 
conviction  on  impeachment.  Now  I  conceive  that  the  president 
ought  not  to  have  the  power  of  pardoning,  because  he  may  frequent 
ly  pardon  crimes  which  were  advised  by  himself.  It  may  happen 
at  some  future  day,  that  he  will  establish  a  monarchy,  and  destroy 
the  republic.  If  he  has  the  power  of  granting  pardons  before  in¬ 
dictment,  or  conviction,  may  he  not  stop  enquiry  and  prevent  detec¬ 
tion?  The  case  of  treason  ought  at  least  to  be  excepted.  This  is  a 
weighty  objection  with  me. 

Mr  LEE  reminded  his  honorable  friend,  that  it  did  follow  of 
•necessity,  that  the  president  should  command  in  person.  That  he 
was  to  command  as  a  civil  officer,  and  might  only  take  the  command 
when  he  was  a  man  of  military  talents,  and  the  public  safety  re¬ 
quired  it.  He  thought  the  power  of  pardoning,  as  delineated  in  the 
constitution,  could  be  no  where  so  well  placed  as  in  the  president. 
It  was  so  in  the  government  of  New  York,  and  had  been  found  safe 
and  convenient. 

Mr  MASON  replied,  that  he  did  not  mean  that  the  president 
was  of  necessity  to  command,  hut  he  might  if  he  pleased  ;  and  if 
he  was  an  ambitious  man,  he  might  made  a  dangerous  use  of  it. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  hoped  the  committee  would  not  ad¬ 
vert  to  this — that  the  army  and  navy  were  to  be  raised  by  congress, 
and  not  the  president.  It  was  on  the  same  footing  with  our  state 
government:  for  the  governor  with  the  council,  were  to  embody  the 
militia,  but  when  actually  embodied,  they  were  under  the  sole  com¬ 
mand  of  the  governor.  The  instance  adduced  was  not  similar. 
General  Washington  was  not  a  president.  As  to  possible  danger, 
any  commander  might  attempt  to  pervert  what  was  intended  for  the 
common  defence  of  the  community,  to  its  destruction.  The  presi¬ 
dent  at  the  end  of  four  years,  was  to  relinquish  all  his  offices.  But 
if  any  other  person  was  to  have  the  command,  the  time  would  not  be- 
limited, 

Mr  MASON  answered,  that  it  did  not  resemble  the  state  consti- 


DEBATES. 


f  Madisoi^. 

hm 


45G 

tution,  because  the  governor  did  not  possess  such  extensive  powers 
as  the  president,  and  had  no  influence  over  the  navy.  The  liberty 
of  the  people  had  been  destroyed  by  those  who  were  military  com¬ 
manders  only.  The  danger  here  was  greater  hy  the  junction  of 
great  civil  powers  to  the  command  of  the  army  and  fleet.  Although 
congress  are  to  raise  the  army,  said  he,  no  security  arises  from  that: 
for  in  time  of  war,  they  must  and  ought  to  raise  an  army,  which 
will  be  numerous,  or  otherwise,  according  to  the;  nature  of  the  war, 
and  then  the  president  is  to  command  without  any  control. 

Mr  MADISON,  adverting  to  Mr  Mason’s  objection  to  the  presi¬ 
dent’s  power  of  pardoning,  said,  it  would  be  extremely  improper  to 
vest  it  in  the  house  of  representatives,  and  not  much  less  so  to 
place  it  in  the  senate;  because  numerous  bodies  were  actuated  more 
or  less  by  passion,  and  might  in  the  moment  of  vengeance  forget 
humanity.  It  was  an  established  practice  in  Massachusetts  for  the 
legislature  to  determine  in  such  cases,  It  was  found,  says  he,  that 
two  different  sessions,  before  each  of  which  the  question  came,  with 
respect  to  pardoning  the  delinquents  of  the  rebellion,  were  governed 

precisely  by  different  sentiments,  the  one  would  execute  with  uni- 

* 

versal  vengeance,  and  the  other  would  extend  general  mercy. 

There  is  one  security  in  this  case  to  which  gentlemen  may  not 
have  adverted  :  if  the  president  be  connected  in  any  suspicious  man¬ 
ner  with  any  person,  and  there  be  grounds  to  believe  he  will  shelter 
himself,  the  house  of  representatives  can  impeach  him  :  they  can 
remove  him  if  found  guilty:  they  can  suspend  him  when  suspected,, 
and  the  power  will  devolve  on  the  vice  president.  Should  he  bo- 
suspected  also,  he  may  likewise  be  suspended  till  he  be  impeached,, 
and  removed,  and  the  legislature  may  make  a  temporary  appoint¬ 
ment.  This  a  great  security. 

Mr  MASON  vindicated  the  conduct  of  the  assemblies  mentioned 
by  the  gentleman  last  up.  He  insisted  they  were  both  right.  For 
in  the  first  instance  when  such  ideas  of  severity  prevailed,  a  rebel¬ 
lion  was  in  existence  :  in  such  circumstance,  it  was  right  to  be 
rigid.  But  after  it  was  over,  it  would  be  wrong  to  exercise  unne¬ 
cessary  severity. 

Mr  MADISON  replied,  that  the  honorable  member  had  misunder¬ 
stood  the  fact:  for  the  first  assembly  was  after  the  rebellion  was  over. 
The  decision  must  have  been  improper  in  one  or  the  other  case.  It 
marks  this  important  truth,  says  he,  that  numerous  bodies  of  men 
are  improper  to  exeupise  this  power.  The  universal  experience  of 
mankind  proves  it. 

The  second  clause  of  the  second  section  was  then  read. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON  thought  this  a  most  dangerous  clause,  as 
thereby  five  states  might  make  a  treaty  ;  ten  senaters,  the  represen- 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


457 


tativos  of  five  states,  being  two  thirds  of  a  quorum.  These  ten 
might  come  from  the  five  smallest  states.  By  the  confederation  nine 
states  were  necessary  to  concur  in  a  treaty.  This  secured  justice 
and  moderation.  His  principal  fear,  however,  was  not  that  five, 

but  that  seven,  states — a  bare  majority  would  make  treaties  to  bind 
the  union. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS,  in  answer  to  Mr  Mason,  insisted 
that  we  were  on  a  mere  safe  footing  in  this  constitution  than  in  the 
confederation.  The  possibility  of  five  states  making  treaties,  wras 
founded  on  a  susposition  of  the  non-attendance  of  the  senators  from 
the  other  statee.  This  non-attendance,  he  observed,  mio-ht  be  re- 
ciprocated.  It  was  presumable,  that  on  such  important  occasions 
they  would  attend  from  all  the  states,  and  then  there  must  be  a  con¬ 
currence  of  nine  states.  From  the  approbation  of  the  president, 
who  had  no  local  views,  being  elected  by  no  particular  state,  but  the 
people  at  large,  was  an  additional  security. 

Mr  MASON  differed  widely  from  the  gentleman.  He  conceived, 
that  the  contiguity  of  some  states,  and  remoteness  of  others,  would 
prevent  that  reciprocity  which  he  had  mentioned.  Some  states  were 
near  the  seat  of  government — Others  far  from  it:  For  instance, 
Georgia  was  eight,  or  nine  hundred  miles  from  it.  Suppose,  says 
he,  a  partial  treaty  13  made  by  the  president,  and  is  to  be  ratified  by 
the  senate.  They  do  not  always  sit.  Who  is  to  convene  them? 
The  president.  Is  it  presumable  that  he  would  call  distant  states 
to  make  the  ratification,  or  those  states  whose  interest  he  knew  to 
be  injured  by  the  treaty  he  had  proposed?  This,  I  conceive,  will 
have  a  contrary  effect  from  what  the  gentleman  says. 

A  desultory  conversation  took  place. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  asked,  if  it  was  presumable  that  the  president, 
who  depended  on  the  people  for  its  political  existence,  wonld  sac¬ 
rifice  the  interest  of  the  eight  largest  states,  to  accommodate  the 
five  smallest?  The  gentleman  had  said  once,  that  the  senate  wrould 
be  always  sitting,  and  yet  five  states  were  now'  to  effect  the  business, 
because  the  rest  wrere  away. 

Mr  LEE  compared  the  possibility  of  non-attendance  of  the  sena¬ 
tors  to  that  in  our  state  legislature.  It  consisted  of  one  hundred  and 
seventy  members:  a  majority  of  these  was  forty- four,  which  were 
competent  to  pass  any  law.  He  demanded  if  all  our  laws  were 
bad,  because  forty-four  might  pass  them?  The  case  was  similar. 
Although  two-thirds  of  the  senators  present  could  form  a  treaty,  it 
was  not  presumable  it  could  often  liappeu,  that  there  should  be  but 
a  bare  quorum  present  on  so  important  an  occasion,  when  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  non-attendance  was  so  well  known. 

Mr  MADISON  thought  it  astonishing  that  gentlemen  should 


458 


DEBATES. 


[Madison. 


think,  that  a  treaty  could  be  got  with  surprise,  or  that  foreign  nations 
should  be  solicitous  to  get  a  treaty  only  ratified  by  the  senators  of  a 
few  states.  Were  the  president  to  commit  any  thing  so  artrocious 
as  to  summon  only  a  few  states,  he  would  be  impeached  and  con¬ 
victed,  as  a  majority  of  the  stales  would  be  affected  by  his  misde¬ 
meanor. 

Mr  HENRY  begged  gentlemen  to  consider  the  condition  of  this 
country  would  be  in,  if  two-thirds  of  a  quorum  should  be  empow* 
ered  to  make  a  treaty — they  might  relinquish  and  alienate  territorial 
rights,  and  our  most  valuable  commercial  advantages.  In  short,  if 
any  thing  should  be  left  us,  it  would  be  because  the  piesident  and 
senators  were  pleased  to  admit  it.  The  power  of  making  treaties, 
by  this  constitution,  ill-guarded  as  it  is,  extended  farther  than  it  did, 
in  any  country  in  the  world. — Treaties  were  to  have  more  force  here 
than  in  any  part  of  Christendom.  For  he  defied  any  gentleman  to 
show  any  thing  so  extensive  in  any  strong  energetic  government  in 
Europe.  Treaties  rest,  says  he,  on  the  laws  and  usages  of  nations. 
To  say  that  they  are  municipal,  is,  to  me,  a  doctrine  totally  novel. 
To  make  them  paramount  to  the  constitution,  and  laws  of  the  states, 
is  unprecedented.  I  would  give  them  the  same  force  and  obligation 
they  have  in  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  country  in  Europe.  Gen¬ 
tlemen  are  going  on  in  a  fatal  career :  but  I  hope  they  will  stop  be¬ 
fore  the  concede  this  power  unguarded  and  unaltered. 

Mr  MADISON,  instead  of  being  alarmed,  had  no  doubt  but  the 
constitution  would  increase,  rather  than  decrease,  the  security  of  ter¬ 
ritorial  rights  and  commercial  advantages,  as  it  would  augment  the 
strength  and  respectability  of  the  country.  The  honorable  gentle¬ 
men,  says  he,  has  said  we  are  making  great  innovations  in  extend¬ 
ing  the  force  of  treaties.  Are  not  treaties  the  law  of  the  land  in 
England!  I  will  refer  you  to  a  book,  which  is  in  every  man’s  hand, 
Blackstone’s  Commentaries.  It  will  inform  you  that  the  treaties 
made  by  the  king  are  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  If  they 
are  to  have  any  efficacy,  they  must  be  the  law  of  the  land:  they 
are  so  in  every  country.  He  thinks  that  by  the  power  of  making 
treaties,  the  empire  may  be  dismembered  in  time  of  peace.  The 
king  of  Great  Britain  has  the  power  of  making  peace,  but  he  has  no 
power  of  dismembering  the  empire,  or  alienating  any  part  of  it. 
Nay,  the  king  of  France,  has  no  right  of  alienating  part  of  his  do¬ 
minions,  to  any  power  whatsoever.  The  power  of  making  treaties 
does  not  involve  a  right  of  dismembering  the  union. 

Mr  HENRY  asked,  how  the  power  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain 
with  respect  to  dismembering  the  empire,  would  stand,  if  the  con¬ 
stitution  had  declared,  that  treaties  would  be  effectual,  notwith¬ 
standing  any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  the  country!  He 


Nicholas.] 


VIRGINIA. 


459 


would  confess  his  error,  if  the  gentleman  could  prove  that  the  power 
of  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  of  congress,  as  making 
treaties,  were  similar. 

Mr  MADISON  conceived,  that  as  far  as  the  king  of  Great 
Britain  had  a  constitutional  power  of  making  a  treaty,  such  a 
treaty  was  binding.  He  did  not  say  that  his  power  was  unlimited. 
One  exception  was,  that  he  could  not  dismember  the  empire. 

Mr  GRAYSON,  after  discriminating  the  difference  of  what  was 
called  the  law  of  nations  in  different  countries,  and  its  different 
operations,  said  he  was  exceedingly  alarmed  about  this  clause.  His 
apprehensions  were  increased  from  what  he  had  seen.  He  went 
over  the  grounds  which  had  been  before  developed,  of  the  dangers 
to  which  the  right  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  would  be  exposed, 
if  two-thirds  of  the  senators  present  had  a  right  to  make  a  treaty  to 
bind  the  union.  Seven  states  had  already  discovered  a  determined 
resolution  of  yielding  it  to  Spain.  There  was  every  reason,  in  his 
opinion,  to  believe  they  would  avail  themselves  of  the  power  as  soon 
as  it  was  given  them.  The  prevention  of  emigrations  to  the  westward, 
and  consequent  superiority  of  the  southern  power  and  influence, 
would  be  a  powerful  motive  to  impel  them  to  relinquish  that  river. 
He  warmly  expatiated  on  the  utility  of  that  navigation,  and  the 
impolicy  of  surrendering  it  up.  The  consent  of  the  president  is  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  trivial  check,  if  indeed  it  was  any.  For  the  election 
would  be  so  managed,  that  he  would  always  come  from  a  particular 
place,  and  he  would  pursue  the  interest  of  such  place.  Gentlemen 
had  said,  that  the  senators  would  attend  from  all  the  states.  This, 
says  he,  is  impracticable,  if  they  be  not  nailed  to  the  floor.  If  the 
senators  of  the  southern  states  be  gone  but  one  hour,  a  treaty  may 
be  made  by  the  rest,  yielding  that  inestimable  right.  This  paper 
will  be  called  the  law  of  nations  in  America :  it  will  be  the  great 
charter  of  America:  it  will  be  paramount  to  every  thing.  After 
having  once  consented  to  it,  we  cannot  recede  from  it.  Such  is  my 
repugnance  to  the  alienation  of  a  right  which  I  esteem  so  important 
to  the  happiness  of  my  country,  that  I  would  object  to  this  consti¬ 
tution,  if  it  contained  no  other  defect. 

Mr  NICHOLAS,  in  answer  to  the  observations  of  the  gentleman 
last  up,  on  the  law  of  nations,  said  he  thought  it  was  dictated  by  no 
particular  nation — that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  particular  law 
of  nations;  but  that  the  law  of  nations  was  permanent  and  general; 
it  was  superior  to  any  act  or  law  of  any  nation.  It  implied  the 
consent  of  all,  and  was  mutually  binding  on  all,  being  acquiesced 
in  for  the  common  benefit  of  all.  Gentlemen  recurred  to  their  favor¬ 
ite  business  again,  their  scuffle  for  Kentucky  votes.  He  compared 
the  king  of  England’s  power  to  make  treaties,  to  that  given  by  this 


460 


debates. 


[Hekef. 


clause.  He  insisted  they  resembled  each  other.  If  a  treaty  was  to 
e  tie  supreme  law  of  the  land  here,  it  was  so  in  England.  The 
power  was  as  unlimited  in  England,  as  it  was  here.  Let  gentlemen, 

'T  b"’  Sh,h'V  "e,!at  tHe  ldn“  C3n  g°  S°  far’  and  1,0  further;  and  I 

show  them  a  like  limitation  in  America.  But,  say  they,  the 

president  has  no  check.  The  worthy  member  says,  the  weight  of 
power  oug  t  to  be  in  this  part  of  the  continent,  because  the  number 
of  inhabitants  will  be  greater  here.  If  so,  every  freeholder  havimr 
a  right  to  vote  for  the  president,  by  the  interposition  of  electors,  will 
a.tend  to  their  interests.  This  is  a  sufficient  check. 

Mr  HENRY,  Mr  Chairman,  gentlemen  say,  that  the  kino  of 
Great  Britain  has  the  same  right  of  making  treaties  that  cur  presi¬ 
dent  has  here.  I  will  have  no  objection  to  this,  if  you  make  your 
president  a  king.  But  I  will  adduce  a  difference  between  an  Amer¬ 
ican  treaty,  and  an  English  treaty.  Recollect  the  case  of  the 
Russian  ambassador  :  lie  was  arrested  contrary  to  the  rights  of  his 
mas  er.  ihe  Russian  emperor  demanded  the  man  at  whose  instance 
his  ambassador  was  a, rested,  to  be  given  up  to  him,  to  be  put  to  in¬ 
stant  death.  What  did  the  queen  say?  She  wrote  him,  that  that  was 
something  paramount  to  what  she  could  do that  it  exceeded  her 
power  to  comply  with  his  demanij,  because  it  was  contrary  to  the 
constitution  and  laws.  But  how  is  it  here  ?  Treaties  are  binding 
wit  islanding  our  laws  and  constitutions.  Let  us  illustrate  this 
fatal  instance.  Suppose  the  case  of  the  Russian  ambassador  to 
appen  ere.  The  president  can  settle  it  by  a  treaty,  and  have  the 
man  arrested,  and  punished  according  to  Ihe  Russian  manner.  The 
constitutions  of  these  states  may  be  most  flagrantly  violated  without 
medy.  And  still  will  gentlemen  compare  the  two  cases?  So 
grea  was  the  anxiety  of  Queen  Anne,  that  she  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
ussian  prince  with  her  own  hand,  .apologizing  for  her  inability  to 
omp  y  wit  I  his  demands.  The  parliament  was  consulted,  and  a 
aw  ma  e  to  prevent  such  arrests  for  the  future.  I  say  again,  that 
-Z,  C0nsent  to  this  power,  you  depend  on  the  justice  and  equity 

in  ,1°?  m  p0Wer*  We  may  be  to5d>  that  we  shall  find  ample  refuse 
G,  aW  ofnatlons-  When  you  yourselves  have  you  neck  so  low, 

\  o  president  may  dispose  of  your  rights  as  he  pleases,  the  law 
ns  cannot  be  applied  to  relieve  you.  Sure  I  am  if  treaties 
e,  infringing  our  liberties,  it  will  be  too  late  to  say  that  our 
utional  rights  are  violated.  We  are  in  contact  with  two 
P,  ,  TS*  .  redt  ®r*ta*n  and  Spain.  They  may  claim  our  most  valu- 
a  6  terntories>  aad  treaties  may  be  made  to  yield  them.  It  is  easy 
on  our  part  to  define  our  unalienable  rights,  and  expressly  secure 
t  em,  so  as  to  pievent  future  claims  and  disputes.  Suppose  you  be 
arraigned  as  offenders  and  violators  of  a  treaty  made  by  this  go- 


VIRGINIA. 


461 


Randolph.] 


vernmentv  Will  you  have  that  fair  trial  which  offenders  are  entitled 
to  in  your  own  government!  Will  you  plead  a  right  to  the  trial  by 
jury!  You  will  have  no  right  to  appeal  to  your  own  constitution. 
You  must  appeal  to  your  continental  constitution.  A  treaty  may  be 
made  giving  away  your  rights,  and  inflicting  unusual  punishments 
on  its  violators.  It  is  contended,  that  if  the  king  of  Great  Britain 
makes  a  treaty  with  the  line  of  his  prerogative,  it  is  the  law  of  the 
land.  I  agree  that  this  is  proper,  and  if  I  could  see  the  same  checks 
in  that  paper,  which  I  see  in  the  British  government,  I  would  con¬ 
sent  to  it.  Can  the  English  Monarch  make  a  treaty  which  shall 
subvert  the  common  law  of  England,  and  the  constitution!  Dare 
lie  make  a  treaty  that  shall  violate  magna  c'narta,  or  the  bill  of  rights! 
Dare  he  do  any  thing  derogatory  to  the  honor,  or  subversive  of  the 
great  privileges  of  his  people!  No,  Sir.  If  he  did,  it  would  be  nuga¬ 
tory,  and  the  attempt  would  endanger  his  existence. 

The  king  of  France  calls  his  parliament  to  give  him  power  to 
make  what  regulations  with  regard  to  treaties,  they  may  think  con¬ 
ducive  to  the  interest  of  the  nation.  In  the  time  ot  Henry  the  5th, 
a  treaty  with  Sigismund,  king  of  Poland,  was  ratified  by  the  par¬ 
liament.  You  have  not  even  as  much  security  as  that.  You  pros¬ 
trate  your  rights  to  the  president  and  senate.  This  power  is  there¬ 
fore  dangerous  and  destructive. 


Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  conceive  that  neither  the 
life  nor  property  of  any  citizen,  nor  the  particular  right  of  any  state, 
can  be  affected  by  a  treaty.  The  lives  and  properties  of  European 
subjects  are  not  affected  by  treaties,  which  are  binding  on  the  ag¬ 
gregate  community  in  ifs  political  social  capacity. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  if  you  place  treaties  on  the 
same  footing  here,  as  they  are  in  England,  he  will  consent  to  the 
power;  because  the  king  is  restrained  in  making  treaties.  Will  not 
the  president  and  senate  Ire  restrained^  Being  creatures  of  that 
constitution,  can  they  destroy  it!  Can  any  particular  body,  insti¬ 
tuted  for  a  particular  purpose,  destroy  the  existence  of  the  society 
for  whose  benefit  it  is  created!  It  is  said,  there  is  no  limitation  of 
treaties.  I  defy  the  wisdom  of  that  gentleman  to  snew  how  they 
ought  to  be  limited.  W  hen  the  constitution  marks  out  the  powers 
to  be  exercised  by  particular  departments,  I  say  no  innovation  can 
take  place.  An  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  this  is  the  great 
charter  of  America.  If  so,  will  not  the  last  clause  of  the  fourth  ar¬ 
ticle  of  the  constitution,  secure  against  dismemberment!  It  pu- 
vides,  that  “nothing  in  this  constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to 
prejudice  any  claims  of  the,  United  States,  or  of  any  particular  state . 
And  if  this  did  not  constitute  security,  it  follows  from  the  nature  of 
civil  association,  that  no  pajucular  part  shall  sacrifice  the  whole. 


462 


DEBATES. 


[Gray  son. 


Wednesday ,  the  \$th  of  June ,  1788* 

Mr.  GRAYSON,  after  recapitulating  the  dangers  of  losing  the 
Mississippi,  if  the  power  of  making  treaties  as  delineated  in  the 
constitution  were  granted,  insisted  most  strenuously,  that  the  clause 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  had  cited  as  a  security  against  a 
dismemberment  of  the  empire,  was  no  real  security;  because  it  re¬ 
lated  solely  to  the  back  lands  claimed  by  the  United  States,  and 
different  states.  This  clause  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  ena¬ 
bling  congress  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regula¬ 
tions  respecting  the  territory,  or  other  property,  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  and  to  ascertain  clearly  that  the  claims  of  particular 
states  respecting  territory,  should  not  be  prejudiced  by  the  alteration 
of  government;  but  be  on  the  same  footing  as  before.  That  it  could 
not  be  construed  to  be  a  limitation  of  the  power  of  making  treaties. 
Its  sole  intention  was  to  obviate  all  the  doubts  and  disputes  which 
existed  under  the  confederation  concerning  the  western  territory, 
and  other  places  in  controversy  in  the  United  States.  He  defended 
his  former  position  with  respect  to  a  particular  law  of  nations.  I 
insist,  says  he,  that  the  law  of  nations  is  founded  on  particular  laws 
of  different  nations.  I  have  mentioned  some  instances:  I  will  men¬ 
tion  some  more.  It  is  the  part  of  the  laws  of  several  oriental  na> 
tions,  to  receive  no  ambassadors,  and  to  burn  their  prisoners.  It  is- 
a  custom  with  the  grand  seignor  to  receive,  but  not  to  send  ambas¬ 
sadors.  It  is  a  particular  custom  with  him  In  time  of  war  with 
Russia,  to  put  the  Russian  ambassador  in,  fhe  seven  towers.  But, 
the  worthy  member  said,  that  it  was  odd;  there  should  be  a  particu-. 
lar  law  of  nations.  I  beg  leave  to  tell  him  that  the  United  States 
States  are  entering  into  a  particular  law  of  nations  now.  I  do  not 
deny  the  existence  of  a  general  law  of  nations;  but  I  contend,  that 
in  different  nations,  them  are  certain  laws  or  customs  regulating 
their  conduct  towards  other  nations,  which  are  as  permanently  and 
immutably  observed  as  the  general  law  of  nations.  Ojf  course  there 
was  a  law  of  nations  incident  to  the  confederation,,  Any  person 
may  renounce  a  right  secured  to  him  by  any  particular  law  or  cus¬ 
tom  of  a  nation.  If  congress  have  no  right  by  the  law  of  nations 
to  give  away  a  part  of  the  empire,  yet  by  this  compact  they  may 
give  it  up.  I  look  on  that  eompact  to  be  a  part  of  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions.  The  treat^Kof  Munster  formed  a  great  part  or  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions.  How  is  the  Scheldt  given  up?  By  that  treaty,  though  con¬ 
trary  to  the  law  of  nations.  Cannot  congress  give  the  Mississippi 
also  by  treaty,  though  such  cession  would  deprive  us  of  a  right  to 
which,  by  the  law  of  nations,  we  aTe  inalienably  and  indefeasibly 
entitled?  I  lay  it  down  as  a  principle,  that  nations  can,  as  well  a? 


Virginia. 


4G3 


Nicholas.] 

individuals,  renounce  any  particular  right.  Nations  who  inhabit  on 
the  sources  of  rivers  have  a  right  to  navigate  them,  and  go  down  as  * 
well  as  the  waters  themselves. 

Mr.  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  again  drew  a  parallel  between  the 
power  ot  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  of  congress,  with  re¬ 
spect  to  making  treaties.  He  contended,  they  were  on  the  same 
foundation,  and  that  every  possible  security  which  existed  in  the  one 
instance,  was  to  be  found  in  the  other.  To  prove  that  there  was  no' 
constitutional  limits  to  the  king’s  power  of  making  treaties,  and  that 
treaties  when  once  by  him  made,  were  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
he  quoted  the  following  lines  in  Blackstone’s  Commentaries,  vol.  1, 
page  257.  “It  is  also  the  king’s  prerogative  to  make  treaties, 
leagues,  and  alliances,  with  foreign  states  and  princes.  For  it  is, by 
the  law  of  nations,  essential  to  the  goodness  of  a  league,  that  it 
be  made  by  the  sovereign  power;  and  then  it  is  binding  upon  the 
whole  community;  and  in  England  the  sovereign  power  quoad  hocr 
is  vested  in  the  person  of  the  king.  Whatever  contracts  therefore 
he  engages  in,  no  other  power  in  the  kingdom  can  legally  delay, 
resist,  or  annul.”  A  further  proof,  says  Mr.  Nicholas,  that  there 
is  no  limitation  in  this  respect,  is  afforded  by  what  he  adds.  “  And 
yet,  lest  this  plenitude  of  authority  should  be  abused,  to  the  detri¬ 
ment  of  the  public,  the  constitution  has  interposed  a  check  by  the 
means  of  parliamentary  impeachment,  for  the  punishment  of  such 
ministers  as  from  criminal  motives  advise  or  conclude  any  treaty, 
which  shall  afterwards  be  judged  to  derogate  from  the  honor  and 
interest  of  the  nation.”  How  does  this  apply  to  this  constitution? 
rl  he  president  and  seriate  have  the  same  power  of  making  treaties; 
and  when  made  they  are  to  have  the  same  force  and  validity.  They 
are  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  here-~this  book  shews  us  they 
are  so  in  England. 

Have  we  not  seen  in  America  that  treaties  were  violated,  though 
they  are  in  all  countries  considered  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land! 
Was  it  not  therefore  necessary  to  declare  in  explicit  terms,  that  they 
should  be  so  here!  How  then  is  this  constitution  on  a  different 
footing  with  the  government  of  Britain?  The  worthy  member  says* 
they  can  make  a  treaty  relinquishing  our  rights,  and  inflicting  pun¬ 
ishments  ;  because  all  treaties  are  declared  paramount  to  the  consti¬ 
tutions  and  laws  of  the  states.  An  attentive  consideration  of  this 
will  shew  the  committee,  that  they  can  do  no  such  thing.  Tha 
provision  of  the  sixth  article,  is  that  this  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  states,  which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and 
all  the  treaties  made  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  They  can 
by  this  make  no  treaty  which  shall  be  Tepngnantto  the  spirit  of  the 


464 


DEBATES. 


[Mason. 


constitution,  or  inconsistent  with  the  delegated  powers.  The  treat¬ 
ies  they  make  must  be  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  to 
he  within  their  province.  It  is  sufficiently  secured,  because  it  only 
declares  that  in  pursuance  of  the  powers  given  they  shall  he  the  su- 
pieme  law  of  the  land,  notwithstanding  any  thing  in  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  particular  states. 

I  he  fact  which  he  has  adduced  from  the  English  history,  respect- 
mg  the  Russian  ambassador,  does  not  apply  to  this  part  of  the  con¬ 
stitution.  The  arrest  of  that  ambassador  was  an  offence  against,  the 
law  of  nations.  There  was  no  tribunal  to  punish  it  before.  An  act 
was  therefore  made  to  prevent  such  offences  for  the  future;  appoint¬ 
ing  a  court  to  try  offenders  against  it,  and  pointing  out  their  punish¬ 
ment.  That  act  acknowledges  the  arrest  to  have  been  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  the  nations,  and  that  it  was  a  defect  in  their  laws,  that 
no  remedy  had  been  provided  against  such  violations  before.  I  think 
it  must  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  committee,  that  this  power 
is  similar  to  what  it  is  in  England. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON — Mr  Chairman,  it  is  true  that  this  is  one 
of  the  greatest  acts  of  sovereignty,  and  therefore,  ought  to  be  mos 
strongly  guarded.  The  cession  of  such  a  power'  without  such 
checks  and  guards  cannot  be  justified  ;  yet  I  acknowledge  such  a 
power  must  rest  somewhere.  It  is  so  in  all  governments.  If  in 
the  course  of  an  unsuccessful  war  we  should  he  compelled  to  give  up 
part  of  our  territories,  or  undergo  subjugation  if  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  could  not  make  a  treaty  to  give  up  such  a  part  for  the  preser¬ 
vation  of  the  residue,  the  government  itself,  and  consequently  the 
rights  of  the  people,  must  fall. — Such  a  power  must,  therefore,  rest 
somewhere.  For  my  own  part  I  never  heard  it  denied,  that  such  a 
power  must  be  vested  in  the  government.  Our  complaint  is,  that 
it  is  not  sufficiently  guarded,  and  that  it  requires  much  more  solem¬ 
nity  and  caution,  than  are  delineated  in  that  system.  It  is  more*- 
guarded  in  England.  Will  any  gentleman  undertake  to  say,  that 
the  king,  by  his  prerogative,  can  dismember  the  British  empire! 
Could  the  king  give  Portsmouth  to  France?  He  could  not  do  this 
without  an  express  act  of  parliament  — without  the  consent  of  the 
legislature  in  all  its  branches.  There  are  other  things  which  the 
king  cannot  do — which  may  be  done  by  the  president  and  senate  in 
this  case.  Could  the  king,  by  his  prerogative,  enable  foreign  sub¬ 
jects  to  purchase  lands/and  have  an  hereditary  indefeasible  title? 
This  would  require  an  express  act  of  parliament. 

Though  the  king  can  make  treaties,  yet  he  cannot  make  a  treaty 
contrary  to  the  constitution  of  his  country.  Where  did  their  con¬ 
stitution  originate?  It  is  founded  on  a  number  of  maxims,  which 


Mason.  J 


VIRGINIA. 


465 


by  long  time,  are  rendered  sacred  and  inviolable.  Where  are  there 
such  maxims  in  the  American  constitution?  In  that  country,  which 
we  called  formerly  our  mother  country,  they  have  had  for  many  cen¬ 
turies  certain  fundamental  maxims,  which  have  secured  their  per¬ 
sons  and  properties,  and  prevented  a  dismemberment  of  their  country. 
The  common  law,  Sir,  has  prevented  the  power  of  the  crown  from 
destroying  the  immunities  of  the  people.  We  are  placed  in  a  still 
better  condition — in  a  more  Favorable  situation  than  perhaps  any 
people  ever  were  before.  We  have  it  in  our  power  to  secure  our 
liberties  and  happiness  on  the  most  unshaken,  firm  and  permanent 
basis.  We  can  establish  what  government  we  please.  But  by 
that  paper  we  are  consolidating  the  United  States  into  one  great  go¬ 
vernment,  and  trusting  to  constructive  security.  You  will  find  no 
such  thing  in  the  English  government.  The  common  law  of  En¬ 
gland  is  not  the  common  law  of  these  states.  I  conceive,  therefore 
that  there  is  nothing  in  that  constitution  to  hinder  a  dismemberment 
of  the  emoire. 

i 

Will  any  gentleman  say,  that  they  may  not  make  a  treaty,  where¬ 
by  the  subjects  of  France,  England,  and  other  powers  may  buy 
what  lands  they  please  in  this  country?  This  would  violate  those 
principles  which  we  have  received  from  the  mother  country.  The 
indiscriminate  admission  of  all  foreigners  to  the  first  rights  of  citi¬ 
zenship,  without,  any  permanent  security  for  their  attachment  to  the 
country,  is  repugnant  to  every  principle  of  prudence  and  good  poli¬ 
cy.  The  president  and  senate  can  make  any  treaty  whatsoever. — > 
We  wish  not  to  refuse,  but  to  guard  this  power  as  it  is  done  in  En¬ 
gland.  The  empire  there  cannot  be  dismembered,  without  the  con¬ 
sent.  of  the  national  parliament.  We  wish  an  express  and  explicit 
declaration  in  that  paper,  that  the  power  which  can  make  other 
treaties,  cannot,  without  the  consent  of  the  national  parliament — the 
national  legislature,  dismember  the  empire.  The  senate  alone  ought 
not  to  have  this  power*  much  less  ought  a  few  states  to  have  it.  No 
treaty  to  dismember  the  empire,  ought  to  be  made  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  three-fourths  of  the  legislature  in  all  its  branches.  Nor  ought 
such  a  treaty  to  be  made,  but  in  case  of  the  most  urgent  and  una¬ 
voidable  necessity.  When  such  necessity  exists,  there  is  no  doubt 
hut  there  will  be  a  general  and  uniform  vote  of  the  continental  par¬ 
liament. 

Mr  CORBIN  largely  expatiated  on  the  propriety  of  vesting  this 
power  in  the  general  government,  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the 
plan  of  the  convention.  He  also  contended,  that  the  empire  could 
not  be  dismembered  without  the  consent  of  the  part  dismembered. 
To  obviate  the  force  of  the  observations  made  by  an  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  respecting  the  relinquishment  of  the  Scheldt,  he  adduced  the 
vol,  3. 


DEBATES 


466 


{C0RBI3T, 


late  complaints  and  efforts  of  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  respecting' 
that  river.  He  insisted  that  no  part  of  the  constitution  was  less  ex- 
ceptionable  than  this.  If,  says  he,  there  be  any  sound  part  in  thl» 
constitution  it  is  in.  this  clause.  The  representatives  are  excluded' 
from  interposing  in  making  treaties,  because  large  popular  assem¬ 
blies  are  very  improper  to  transact  such  business,  from  the  impossi— 
bility  of  their  acting  with  sufficient  secrecy,  despatch  and  decision, 
which  can  only  be  found  in  small  bodies — and  because  such  numer¬ 
ous  bodies  are  ever  subject  to  factions  and  party  animosities.  It 
would  be  ;dangerous  to  give  this  power  to  the  president  alone — as 
the  concession  of  such  power  to  one  individual,  is  repugnant  to  re¬ 
publican  principles.  It  is,  therefore,  given  to  the  president  and  the 
senate  (who  represent  the  states  in  their  individual  capacities)  con¬ 
jointly.  In  this  it  differs  from  every  government  we  know.  It 
steers  with  admirable  dexterity  between  the  two  extremes— neither 
leaving  it  to  the  executive,  as  in  most  other  governments,  not  to  the 
legislative,  which  would  too  much  retard  such  negociation. 

The  honorable  gentleman  said  that  treaties  are  not.  the  supremo* 
law  of  the  land  in  England.  My  honorable  friend  proved  the  con¬ 
trary  by  the  commentaries  of  Blackstone.  Let  me  confirm  it  by  &> 
circumstance  fresh  in  the  memory  of  every  body.  When  the  treaty 
was  made  by  us  with  England,  it  was  disapproved  ofby  the  En¬ 
glish  parliament,  and  the  administration  was  turned  out :  yet  the 
treaty  was  good.  Does  not  this  prove  that  it  was  binding  on  the 
nation,  and  that  the  king  has  such  a  power  1  What  other  proof  do 
gentlemen  wish  ?  In  England  it  is  a  maxim  that  the  king  can  do 
no  wrong, yet  they  have  sufficient  responsibility, as  the  ministry  can  do 
no  wrong:  for  if  they  advise  him  to  make  a  treaty,  derogatory  to  tho- 
honor  and  interest  of  the  nation,  they  do  it  at  the  risk  of  their  heads.. 
If  the  king  were  to  make  such  a  treaty  himself,  contrary  to  the  advice 
of  his  ministry,  an  honest  or  prudent  minister  would  resign.  The 
president  of  the  United  States  is  responsible  in  person  himself,  at 
well  as  the  senators. 

But  say  gentlemen,  all  treaties  made  under  this  constitution,  ar»* 
to  be  the  supreme  law  of  nations:  that  is,  in  their  way  of  construc¬ 
tion,  paramount  to  the  constitution  itself,  and  the  laws  of  congress*- 
It  is  as  clear,  as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  that  the  treaties  made 
are  to  be  binding  on-  the  states  only.  Is  it  net  necessary  that  they 
should  be  binding  on  the  states?  Fatal  experience  has  proved,  that 
treaties  would  never  be  complied  with,  if  their  observance  depended 
on  the  will  of  the  states,  and  the  consequences  would  be  constant 
war.  For  if  any  one  state  could  counteract  any  treaty,  how  could 
•the  United  States  avoid  hostility  with  foreign  nations?  Do  not 
^gentlemen  see  the  infinite  dangers  that  would  result  from  it,  if  a. 


VIRGINIA. 


467 


CoRRIN.] 

ssmall  part  of  the  community  could  drag  the  whole  confederacy  into 
war? 

The  honorable  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  tells  us,  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  found,  because  in  England  it  is  declared  that  the 
consent  of  parliament  is  necessary.  Had  the  honorable  gentleman 
used  his  usual  discernment  and  penetration,  he  would  see  the  differ** 
ence  betweeen  a  commercial  treaty  and  other  treaties.  A  commer¬ 
cial  treaty  must  be  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  parliament; 
because  such  treaties  will  render  it  necessary  to  alter  some  laws, 
add  new  clauses  to  some,  and  repeal  others.  If  this  be  not  done 
the  treaty  is  void,  quoad  hoc.  The  Mississippi  cannot  be  dismem- 
bered,  but  two  ways — by  a  common  treaty,  or  a  commercial  treaty. 
If  the  interest,  of  congress  will  lead  them  to  yield  it  by  the  first,  the 
law  of  nations  would  justify  the  people  of  Kentucky  to  resist,  and 
the  cession  would  be  nugatory.  It  cannot  then  be  surrendered  by  a 
common  treat)7.  Can  it  be  done  by  a  commercial  treaty.  Ifit 
should,  the  consent  of  the  House  of  Representatives  would  be  requi¬ 
site  ;  because  of  the  correspondent  alterations  that  must  be  made  in 
the  laws. 

[Here  Mr  Corbin  illustrated  his  position  by  reading  the  last 
clause  of  the  treaty  with  France,  which  gives  certain  commercial 
privileges  to  the  subjects  of  France;  to  give  full  effect  to  which, 
certain  correspondent  alterations  were  necessary  in  the  commercial 
regulations.] 

This,  continues  he,  secures  legislative  interference.  Some  of  the 
most  extraordinary  calculations  that  ever  were  made,  have  been 
adduced,  to  prpve,  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  is  on  a 
worse  ground  than  it  was  before.  We  are  told  that  five  states  can 
make  a  treaty.  This  is  on  a  supposition,  that  the  senators  from  the 
other  states  will  be  absent,  which  is  wild  and  extravagant.  On  this 
ground  three  states  can  prevent  it;  and  if  Kentucky  become  a  state, 
two  other  states  with  it  can  prevent  the  making  such  a  treaty.  I 
wish  not  to  assert,  but  to  prove.  Suppose  there  be  fourteen  mem¬ 
bers,  and  the  members  from  Kentucky  be  of  the  number.  Two- 
thirds,  which  are  ten,  are  necessary  to  make  a  treaty.  Three  mem¬ 
bers,  together  with  the  two  members  from  Kentucky,  will  be  sufli- 
'  © 

cient  to  prevent  its  being  made.  But  suppose  all  the  other  states  to 
be  present  (which  is  the  fair  conclusion,  for  it  is  fair  to  conclude 
that  men  will  be  attentive  to  their  own  interest)  what  would  be.t'h# 
consequence? — There  would  be  twrenty-eight.  Two-thirds  of  which 
are  nineteen,  which  is  one  member  more  than  the  senators  of  nine 
states  ;  so  -that  in  such  a  case  ten  states  must  concur  in  the  treaty 
whereas  by  the  old  confederation,  only  nine  states  were  necessary,, 
I  defy  any  man  to  confute  this  doctrine.  The  argument  of  gentle- 
gpen  is  therefore  disingenuous.  I  am  more  forcibly  red  to  thiscoa? 


DEBATES. 


468 


[Henr 


elusion,  when  I  hear  gentlemen  go  to  barbarous  nations  to  addu< 
proofs  of  the  requisites  of  a  social  government. 

Mr  HENRY.  Mr  Chairman,  this  great  national  concern 
handled  in  a  manner  quite  new  to  me.  When  arguments  are  use 
which  are  calculated  in  their  nature  to  mislead  men — when  I  refie 
on  the  subject,  I  dread  that  our  rights  are  about  to  be  given  awa 
though  I  may  possibly  be  mistaken.  I  said  yesterday,  and  n 
without  thinking  much  on  the  subject,  that  my  mind  would  be 
ease  were  we  on  the  same  grounds  in  this  respect,  as  the  Englis 
are.  Gentlemen  think  that  Great  Britain  was  adduced  by  me 
this  instance,  unfoitunately  for  myself,  because  the  learned  Jud^ 
Blackstone  says,  that  treaties  are  binding  on  the  nation,  and  tl 
king  can  make  treaties.  That  learned  Judge  says,  there  is  one  thin 
which  operates  as  a  guard.  That  thing  we  have  not  in  this  paper-- 
it  is  responsibility.  He  tells  you,  that  the  minister  who  will  saerr 
fice  the  interest  of  the  nation,  is  subject  to  parliamentary  impeach 
ment.  This  has  been  ever  found  to  be  effectual.  But  I  beg  gentl 
men  to  consider  the  American  impeachment.  What  is  it  ?  It  is 
mere  sham — a  mere  farce.  When  they  do  any  thing  derogatory  I 
the  honor  or  interest  of  their  country,  they  are  to  try  themselve  i 
Is  it  so  in  England?  The  history  of  that  country,  shews  that  the  i 
have  blocks  and  gibbets.  The  violators  of  the  public  interest  hav 
been  tried  justly  and  impartially,  and  perished  by  those  nece;  ■ 
sary  instruments  of  justice.  Can  there  be  any  security  whei: 
offenders  mutually  try  one  another?  I  hope  gentlemen  will  considi  i 
the  necessity  of  amendment  in  this  clause. 

We  are  told  that  the  state  rights  are  preserved.  Suppose  th  3 
state  right  to  territory  be  preserved,  I  ask  and  demand  how  do  th) 
rights  oi  persons  stand,  when  they  have  power  to  make  any  treat], 
and  that  treaty  is  paramount  to  constitutions,  laws, and  every  thing* 
When  a  person  shall  be  treated  in  the  most  horrid  manner,  anl 
most  cruelly  and  inhumanly  tortured,  will  the  security  territory  I 
rights  grant  him  redress?  Suppose  an  unusual  punishment  in  coi" 
sequence  of  an  arrest  similar  to  that  of  the  Russian  ambassador-  ■ 
can  it  be  said  to  be  contrary  to  the  state  rights? 

1  might  go  on  in  this  discrimination,  but  it  is  too  obvious  that  th 
security  of  territory  is  no  security  of  individual  safety.  I  ask,  hot 
are  the  state  rights,  individual  rights,  and  national  rights  secured 
Not  as  in  England;  for  the  authority  quoted  from  Blackstone  would 
it  stated  right,  prove  in  a  thousand  instances,  that  if  the  king  c 
England  attempted  to  take  away  the  rights  of  individuals,  the  lav 
would  stand  against  him.  The  acts  of  parliament  would  stand  ii 
his  way.  The  bill  and  declaration  of  rights  would  be  against  him 
The  common  law  is  fortified  by  the  bill  of  rights.  The  rights  c' 


’Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


469 


the  people  cannot  be  destroyed,  even  by  the  paramount  operation  of 
the  law  of  nations,  as  the  case  of  the  Russian  ambassador  evinces. 

If  you  look  for  a  similar  security  in  the  paper  on  your  table,  you 
look  in  vain.  That  paper  is  defective  without  such  a  declaration  of 
rights.  It  is  unbounded  without  such  restrictions.  If  the  constitu¬ 
tion  be  paramount,  how  are  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  states 
to  stand?  Their  operation  will  be  totally  controlled  by  it.  For  it 
18  paramount  tocvery  thing,  unless  you  can  shew  some  guard  against 
it.  The  rights  of  persons  are  exposed  as  it  stands  now. 

The  calculation  of  the  honorable  gentleman  (Mr.  Corbin)  was 
wrong.  I  am  sure  he  spoke  from  the  best  of  his  recollection,  when 
he  referred  to  our  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  and  said,  that 
it  was  binding  on  the  nation,  though  disapproved  of  by  parliament. 
Did  not  an  act  of  parliament  pass,  acknowledging  the  independence 
•of  America?  If  the  king  of  England  wished  to  dismember  the  em¬ 
pire,  would  he  dare  to  attempt  it  without  the  advice  of  parliament? 
The  most  hardy  minister  would  not  dare  to  advise  him  to  attempt 
it  without  a  previous  consultation  of  parliament.  No  cession  of 
territory  is  binding  on  the  nation  unless  it  be  foi tilled  by  an  act  of  * 
parliament.  Will  it  be  so  in  your  American  government?  No. 
They  will  tell  >ou  that  they  are  omnipotent  as  to  this  point. 

We  are  so  used  to  speak  of  enormity  of  powers,  that  wre  are  fa¬ 
miliarized  with  it.  To  me  this  power  appears  still  destructive;  for 
they  can  make  any  treaty.  If  congress  forbears  to  exercise  it,  you 
.may  thank  them;  but  they  may  exercise  it  if  they  please,  and  as 
they  please.  They  have  a  right,  from  the  paramount  power  given 
them,  to  do  so.  Will  the  gentleman  say,  that  this  power  is  para¬ 
mount  to  the  state  laws  only?  Is  it  not  paramount  to  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  and  every  thing?  Can  any  thing  be  paramount  to  what  is 
paramount?  Will  not  the  laws  of  congress  be  binding  on  congress, 
as  well  as  on  any  particular  state?  Will  they  not  be  bound  by  their 
own  acts?  The  worthy  gentleman  must  see  the  impropriety  of  his 
assertion.  To  render  this  safe,  I  conceive  we  must  adopt  my  honor¬ 
able  friend’s  amendment.  The  component  part  of  this  supreme 
power  are  the  president,  senators,  and  house  of  representatives. 
The  latter  is  the  most  material  part.  They  ought  to  interpose  in 
the  formation  of  treaties.  When  their  consent  is  necessary,  there 
will  be  a  certaintjr  of  attending  to  the  public  interests. 

Mr.  Henry  then  contended,  that  there  was  real  responsibility  in 
the  British  government,  and  sufficient  security  arising  from  the  com¬ 
mon  law,  declaration  of  rights,  &c.;  whereas,  in  this  government, 
there  was  no  barrier  to  stop  their  mad  career.  He  hoped  to  obtain 
the  amendments  which  his  honorable  friend  had  proposed. 

Mr.  MADISON. — Mr.  Chairman,!  am  persuaded  that  when  this 


debates. 


470 


[Madisoj^ 


power  comes  to  be  thoioughly  and  candidly  veiwed,  it  will  bo  fonn. 
right  and  pioper.  As  to  its  extent,  perhaps  it  will  be  satisfactory  t 
the  committee,  that  the  power  is  precisely  in  the  new  constitution,  a 
it  is  in  the  confederation.  In  the  existing  confederacy,  congres; 
are  authorized  indefinitely  to  make  treaties.  Many  of  ihe  states  havi 
recognised  the  treaties  of  congress  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  th. 
land.  Acts  have  passed  within  a  year,  declaring  this  to  be  the  case 
I  have  seen  many  of  them.  Does  it  follow,  because  this  power  l 
giren  to  congress,  that  it  is  absolute  and  unlimited!  I  do  not  con 
ceive  that  power  is  given  to  the  president  and  senate  to  dismembe 
the  empire,  or  to  alienate  any  great  essential  right.  I  do  not  think 
the  whole  legislative  authority  have  this  power.  The  exercise  o. 
the  power  must  be  consistent  with  the  object  of  the  delegation. 

One  objection  against  the  amendment  proposed,  is  this;  that  by 
Implication,  it  would  give  power  to  the  legislative  authority  to  dis¬ 
member  the  empire — a  power  that  ought  not  to  be  given,  but  by  the 
necessity  that  would  force  assent  from  every  man.  I  think  it  restai 
on  the  safest  foundation  as  it  is.  The  object  of  treaties  is  the  regu¬ 
lation  of  intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  and  is  external.  I  do  not 
think  it  possible  to  enumerate  all  the  cases  in  which  such  external 
regulations  would  be  necessary.  Would  it  be  right  to  define  all  the 
cases  in  which  congress  could  exercise  this  authority!  The  defini¬ 
tion  might,  and  probably  would  be  defective.  They  might  he  re¬ 
strained  by  such  a  definition,  from  exercising  the  authority  where  it 
would  be  essential  to  the  interest  and  safety  of  the  community.  It 

is  most  safe,  therefore,  tc  leave  it  to  be  exercised  as  contingencies 
may  arise. 

It  is  to  be  presumed,  that  in  transactions  with  foreign  countries, 
those  who  regulate  them,  will  feel  the  whole  force  of  national  at¬ 
tachment  to  their  country.  The  contrast  being  between  their  own 
nation  and  a  foreign  nation,  is  it  not  presumable  they  will,  as  far  as- 
possible,  advance  the  interest  of  thoir  own  country!  Would  it  not 
be  considered  as  a  dangerous  principle  in  the  British  government, 
were  the  king  to  have  the  same  power  in  internal  regulations,  as  he 
has  in  the  external  business  of  treaties?  Yet,  as  among  other  iea- 
tons,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  he  will  prefer  the  interest  of  his  own, 
to  that  of  another  country,  it  is  thought  proper  to  give  him  this  ex¬ 
ternal  power  cf  making  treaties.  This  distinction  is  well  worthy 
the  consideration  of  gentlemen.  I  think  the  argument  of  the  gentle¬ 
man  who  restrained  the  supremacy  of  these  to  the  laws  of  particu¬ 
lar  states,  and  not  to  congress,  is  rational.  Here  the  supremacy  of 
«  treat)'  is  contrasted  with  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  of  the  states. 

It  cannot  be  otherwise  supreme.  If  it  does  not  supersede  their  ex¬ 
isting  laws,  as  far  as  they  contravene  its  operation,,  it  cannot  be  af 


UimtoN.] 


VIRGINIA. 


471 


any  effect.  To  counteract  it  by  the  supremacy  of  the  state  laws 
would  bring-  on  the  union  the  just  charge  of  national  perfidy,  and 
involve  us  in  war. 

Suppose  the  king  of  Great  Britain  should  make  a  treaty  with 
France,  where  he  had  a  constitutional  right;  if  the  treaty  should  re¬ 
quire  an  internal  regulation,  and  the  parliament  should  make  a  law 
to  that  effect,  that  law  would  be  binding  on  the  one,  though  not  on 
the  other  nation.  Suppose  there  should  be  a  violation  of  right  by 
the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  president  and  senate;  if  there  was 
apparent  merit  in  it,  it  would  be  binding  on  the  people:  for  where 
there  is  a  power  for  any  particular  purpose,  it  must  supersede  what 
may  oppose  it,  or  else  it  can  be  no  power.  For  instance,  where  there 
)•  a  power  of  declaring  war,  that  power  as  to  declaring  war  super¬ 
sedes  every  thing.  This  would  be  an  unfortunate  case,  should  it 
happen;  but  should  it  happen,  there  is  a  remedy;  and  there  being  a 
remedy,  they  will  be  restrained  against  abuses. 

But  let  us  compare  the  responsibility  in  this  government  to  that  of 
the  British  government.  If  there  be  an  abuse  of  this  royal  peroga- 
tive,  the  minister  who  advises  him,  is  liable  to  impeachment.  This 
is  the  only  restraint  on  the  sovereign.  Now,  Sir,  is  not  the  minis¬ 
ter  of  the  United  States  under  restraint?  Who  is  the  minister? — 
The  president  himself,  who  is  liable  to  impeachment..  He  is  res¬ 
ponsible  in  person.  But  for  the  abuse  of  the  power  of  the  king,  tha 
responsibility  is  in  his  advisers.  Suppose  the  constitution  had  said, 
that  this  minister  alone  could  make  treaties,  and  when  he  violated 
the  interest  of  the  nation,  he  would  be  impeached  by  the  senate;  then 
the  comparison  would  hold  good  between  the  two  governments.  But 
is  there  not  an  additional  security  by  adding  to  him  the  representa¬ 
tives  and  guardians  of  the  political  interest  of  the  states?  Ifheshoul 
•educe  a  part  of  the  senate  to  a  participation  in  his  crimes,  thos* 
who  were  not  seduced  would  pronounce  sentence  against  him;  and 
there  is  this  supplementary  security,  that  he  may  be  convicted  and 
punished  afterwards,  when  other  members  come  in  the  senate,  on* 
third  being  excluded  every  second  year.  So  that  there  is  a  two-fold 
•ecurity.  The  security  of  impeachment  and  conviction  by  thos® 
•enators  that  they  may  be  innocent,  should  no  more  than  one.tbiid 
be  engaged  with  the  president  in  the  plot;  and  should  there  be  mor* 
of  them  engaged  in  it,  he  may  be  tried  and  convicted  by  the  suc¬ 
ceeding  senators,  and  the  upright  senators  who  were  in  the  senat® 
before. 

As  to  the  case  of  the  Russian  ambassador,  I  shall  say  nothing. 
It  ig  as  inapplicable  as  many  other  quotations  made  by  the  gentle¬ 
man.  I  conceive  that  as  far  as  the  bills  of  rights  in  the  states,  do 
sot  express  any  thing  foreign  to  the  nature  of  such  things,  and  «&- 


DEBATES. 


[Pendleton. 


press  fundamental  principles  essentual  to  liberty,  and  those  privi¬ 
leges  which  are  declared  necessary  to  all  free  people,  these  rights 
are  not  encroached  on  by  this  government.  [Mr.  Madison  added 
other  remarks  which  could  not  be  heard.] 

Mr.  CORBIN  begged  leave  to  explain  what  he  had  said.  He 
acknowledged  that  an  act  of  parliament  passed,  acknowledging  the 
independence  of  America:  but  though  there  was  nothing  in  that  act 
respecting  the  Newfoundland  fishery,  and  we  were  by  the  treaty  to 
enjojr  a  right  te  that  fishery  unmolested,  yet  that  part  of  the  treaty 
was  binding  on  the  nation. 

After  some  desultory  conversation,  concerning  the  mode  of  con¬ 
sidering  the  judiciary. 

The  1st  and  2d  sections,  of  the  third  article,  were  read 

Mr  PENDLETON. — Mr  Chairman,  on  a  former  occasion  when 
I  was  considering  the  Government  at  larn-e,  I  mentioned  the  necessi- 
ty  of  making  a  judiciary  an  essentual  part  of  the  government.  It  is 
necessary  in  order  to  arrest  the  executive  arm,  prevent  arbitral  pun¬ 
ishments,  and  give  a  fair  trial,  that  the  innocent  may  be  guarded, 
and  the  guilty  brought  to  just  punishment  and  that  honesty  and  indus¬ 
try  be  protected,  and  injustice  and  fraud  be  prevented.  Taking  it 
for  granted  then,  that  a  judiciary  is  necessary,  the  power  of  that  ju¬ 
diciary  must  be  co-extensive  with  the  legislative  power,  and  reach 
to  all  parts  of  the  society  intended  to  be  governed.  They  must  be 
so  arranged,  that  there  must  be  some  court  which  shall  be  the  cen¬ 
tral  point  of  their  operations;  and  because  all  the  business  cannot  be 
done  in  that  part,  there  must  be  inferior  courts  to  carry  it  on.  The 
first  clause  contains  an  arrangement  of  the  courts — one  supreme,  and 
such  inferior  as  congress  may  ordain  and  establish.  This  seems  to 
me  to  be  proper.  Congress  must  be  the  judges,  and  may  find  rea¬ 
sons  to  change  and  vary  them  as  experience  shall  dictate.  It  is 
therefore  not  onty  improper  but  exceedingly  inconvenient  to  fix  the 
arrangement  in  the  constitution  itself,  and  not  leave  it  to  laws  which 
may  be  changed  according  to  circumstances.  I  think  it  highly  prob¬ 
able  that  their  first  experiment  will  be,  to  appoint  the  state  courts 
to  have  the  inferior  federal  jurisdiction;  because  it  would  be  best 
calculated  to  give  general  satisfaction,  answer  economical  purposes; 
since  a  small  additional  salary  may  in  that  case  suffice,  instead  of 
competent  prevision  for  the  judges.  But  even  this  eligible  mode 
experience  may  furnish  powerful  reasons  for  changing,  and  a  power 
to  make  such  changes  ought  to  rest  with  congress.  This  clause  al¬ 
so  secures  an  important  point — the  independency  of  the  judges,  both 
as  to  tenure  of  office  and  fixing  of  salary.  1  wish  the  restraint  had 
been  applied  to  increase  as  well  as  diminution. 


VIRGINIA. 


473 


Pendleton.] 

The  second  section  points  out  the  subjects  of  their  jurisdiction: 

1.  Cases  arising  under  the  constitution. 

2*  under  the  laws  of  the  federal  legislature.  ^ 

3.  treaties  made  by  them. 

4.  AH  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  ministers,  and  consuls. 

o.  All  cases  of  maritime  or  admiralty  jurisdiction. 

6.  Controversies  wherein  the  United  States  shall  be  party. 

7.  '  between  two  or  more  states.  , 

8*  between  a  state  and  citizens  of  anothei  state. 

9*  between  citizens  of  different  states. 

20.  between  citizens  of  the  same  state,  claiming 

lands  under  grants  of  different  states. 

II*  between  a  state,  or  its  citizens,  and  foreign 

states,  citizens  or  subjects. 

Without  entering  into  a  distinction  of  all  its  parts,  I  believe  it  will 
be  found  that  they  are  all  cases  of  general  and  not  local  concerns. 
The  necessity  and  propriet}^  of  a  federal  jurisdiction,  in  all  such  ca¬ 
ses,  must  strike  every  gentleman.  \ 

The  next  clause  settles  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme 
court  confining  it  two  cases — that  of  ambassadors,  ministers,  and 
consuls,  and  those  in  which  a  state  shall  be  a  party.  It  excludes 
its  original  jurisdiction  in  all  other  cases.  But  it  appears  to  me, 
that  it  will  not  restrain  congress  from  regulating  even  these  so  as  to 
permit  foreign  ambassadors  to  sue  in  the  inferior  courts,  or  even  to 
compel  them  to  do  so,  where  their  causes  may  be  trivial, or  they  havo 
no  reason  to  expect  a  partial  trial.  Notwithstanding  this  jurisdic¬ 
tion  is  given  to  the  supreme  court,  yet  congress  may  go  farther  by 
their  laws,  so  as  to  exclude  its  original  jurisdiction  by  limiting  the 
cases  wherein  it  shall  be  exercised.  They  may  require  seme  sat¬ 
isfactory  evidence,  that  the  party  could  not  expect  a  fair  trial  in  the 
inferior  court.  I  am  struck  with  this  view  from  considering,  that 
the  legislature  is  not  excluded  by  the  general  jurisdiction  in  the  con¬ 
stitution,  from  regulating  it  to  accommodate  the  convenience  of  the 
people.  Yet  the  legislature  cannot  extend  its  original  jurisdiction, 
which  is  limited  to  these  cases  only 

The  next  branch  brings  me  to  the  appellate  jurisdiction.  And 
first,  I  say  it  is  proper  and  necessary  in  all  free  governments,  to  al¬ 
low  appeals  under  certain  restrictions,  in  order  to  prevent  injustice 
by  correcting  the  erroneous  decisions  of  local  subordinate  tribunals, 
and  introduce  uniformity  in  decision.  The  appellate  jurisdiction  is, 
therefore,  undoubtedly  proper,  and  would  not  have  been  objected  to 
if  they  had  not  introduced,  unfortunately  in  this  clause  the  words, 
“  both  as  to  law  and  fact.”  Though  I  dread  no  danger,  I  wish  these 
words  had  been  buried  in  oblivion.  If  they  had,  it  would  have  si¬ 
lenced  the  greatest  objections  against  the  section,  I  will  give  my 
iree  and  candid  sentiments  on  it.  Wfefind  them  followed  by  words 


DEBATES. 


m 


^PeNDL8T  Olfr 


which  remove  a  great  deal  of  doubt.  With  such  exceptions,  and 
tinder  such  regulations,  as  congress  shall  make.”  So  that  congress 
may  make  such  regulations  as  they  may  think  conducive  to  the  pub¬ 
lic  convenience. 

Let  us  consider  the  appellate  jurisdiction  if  these  words  had  been 
left  out.  The  general  jurisdiction  must  embrace  decrees  in  chancery 
and  admiralty,  and  judgements  in  courts  of  common  law,  in  the  or¬ 
dinary  practice  of  this  appellate  jurisdiction.  W  hen  there  is  an  ap¬ 
peal  from  the  inferior  court  to  the  court  of  chancery,  the  appellate 
jurisdiction  goes  to  law  and  fact ;  because  the  whole  testimony  ap¬ 
pears  in  the  record.  The  court  proceeds  to  consider  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  both  law  and  fact  blended  together,  and  then  decreeB  ac¬ 
cording  to  equity.  This  must  be  unexceptionable  to  every  body. 
How  is  itjn  appeals  from  the  admiralty?  That  court,  except  in 
tome  cases,  proceeds  as  a  court  of  chancery.  In  some  cases  they 
have  trials  by  jury.  But  in  most  cases  they  proceed  as  in  chancery. 
They  consider  all  the  circumstances,  and  determine  as  well  what 
the  fact,  as  what  the  law,  is.  When  this  goes  to  the  superior  court 
It  is  determined  the  same  way. 

Appeals  from  the  common  law  courts,  involve  the  consideration  of 
focts  by  the  superior  court,  when  there  is  a  special  verdict.  They 
consider  the  fact  and  law  together,  and  decide  accordingly.  But 
they  cannot  introduce  new  testimony.  When  a  jury  proceeds  to  try 
a  cause  in  an  inferior  court,  a  question  may  arise  on  the  competency 
of  a  witness,  or  some  other  testimony.  The  inferior  courts  decides 
that  question — they  either  admit  or  reject  that  evidence.  The  party 
intending  to  object,  states  the  matter  in  a  bill  of  exceptions.  The 
jury  then  proceeds  to  try  the  cause,  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  inferior  court;  and  on  appeal,  the  superior  court  determines  up¬ 
on  the  judgment  of  the  inferior  court.  They  do  not  touch  the  testi¬ 
mony.  If  they  determine  that  the  evidence  was  either  ^improperly 
admitted  or  rejected,  they  set  aside  the  judgment,  and  send  back  tho 
cause  to  be  tried  again  by  a  jury  in  the  same  court.  These  are  the 
only  eases  in  appeals  fron/inferior  courts  of  common  law,  where  the 
superior  court  can  even  consider  facts  incidentally  I  fell  the  danger 
as  much  as  any  gentleman  in  this  committee  of  carrying  a  party  to 
the  federal  court,  to  have  a  trial  there.  But  it  appears  to  me  that  it 
will  not  be  the  case,  if  that  be  the  practice  which  I  have  now  stated 
and  that-ie.  the  practice  must  be  admitted.  The  appeals  may  b® 
limited  to  c  certain  sum.  I  make  no  doubt  it  will  be  so.  You  can¬ 
not  protent  appeals  without  great  inconvenience*,  kut  eongreaacan 
prevent  that  dreadful  oppression  which  would  enable  many  men  to 
Uave  e  trial  in  the  federal  court,  which  is  ruinous.  TheTe  iy  a  powee 


Pctdmeton.]  VIRGINIA. 

which  may  be  considered  as  a  great  security — the  power  of  mating 
what  regulations  and  exceptions  in  appeals  they  may  think  proper, 
may  be  so  contrived  as  to  render  appeals  as  to  law  and  fact  proper 
and  perfectly  inoffensive.  How  will  this  power  be  exercised!  If 
I  thought  there  was  a  possibility  of  danger,  1  would  be  alarmed. 

But  when  I  consider  who  this  congress  are — that  they  are  thb 
representatives  of  thirteen  states,  (which  may  become  fourteen  or 
fifteen,  or  a  much  greater  number  of  states)  who  cannot  be  interest¬ 
ed  in  the  most  remote  degree,  to  subject  their  citizens  to  oppression* 
of  that  dangerous  kind,  but  will  feel  the  same  inclination  to  guard 
their  citizens  from  them,  I  am  not  alarmed.  I  consider  them  as  se¬ 
cured  from  it,  by  the  arrangement  of  these  courts  by  congress.  To 
carry  the  citizens  a  great  distance  from  their  respective  states  can 
be  of  no  advantage,  but  a  great  hardship  to  every  state,  except  that 
wherein  the  seat  of  government  may  be.  I  conceive  it  probable,  that 
they  will,  as  far  as  they  may  consistently  with  the  national  good, 
confine  these  cases.  But  when  I  cast  my  eyes  to  the  southern  and 
eastern  states,  every  one  of  which  are  at  a  greater  distance  than  w& 
are,  I  cannot  entertain  a  doubt,  but  what  this  point  will  be  perfectly 
•ecure. — Every  state  being  concerned  almost  equally,  we  have  suf¬ 
ficient  security  that  when  they  come  to  organize  the  supreme  courtr 
they  will  regulate  it,  so  as  to  exclude  this  danger. 

The  fourth  branch  secures  two  important  points  in  criminal 
cases.  1st. — That  the  trial  shall  be  by  jury,  *2d — That  it  shall  b# 
in  the  state  where  the  offence  is  committed.  I  does  not  point  eat 
where  it  shall  be  within  the  state,  or  the  more  minute  minuti®  re¬ 
specting  it :  but  laws  will  be  made  by  which  it  will  b*  regulated' 
fully  and  minutely,  I  cannot  conceive  what  motives  they  eaa 
have  in  forming  these  trials,  to  render  them  oppressive.  We  have 
this  security — that  our  citizens  shall  not  bo  carried  out  of  the  state 
and  that  no  other  trial  can  be  substituted  to  that  by  jury.. 

[Mr  Pendleton  made  many  other  remarks  but  he  spoke  too  low  to 
be  comprehended  distinctly.] 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman  I  had  some  hopes  thst 
tho  candour  and  reason  of  the  warmest  friends  of  this  constitution 
would  have  led  them  to  point  out  objections  so  important.  They 
must  occur,  more  or  less,  to  the  mind  of  every  one.  It  is  with  great 
reluctance  I  speak  of  this  department,  as  it  lies  out  of  my  lin®.  I 
*hould  not  tell  my  sentiments  upon  it,  did  I  not  conceive  it  ft)  be  bo 
constructed  as  to  destroy  the  dearest  rights  cf  the  community.  Af¬ 
ter  having  read  the  first  section,  Mr  Mason  asked  what  id  th©r«>  left 
to  the  state  courts?  Will  any  gentlemen  be  pleaded,  candidly,  fair¬ 
ly,  and  without  sophistry,  to  shew  us  what  remains?  TherfeU  ttsf 


4176 


DEBATES. 


[Masois. 


limitation.  It  goes  to  every  thing. — The  inferior  courts  are  to  be 
as  numerous  as  congress  may  think  proper.  They  are  to  be  of 
whatever  nature  they  please.  Read  the  second  section,  and  contem¬ 
plate  attentively  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  these  courts,  and 
consider  if  there  be  any  limits  to  it. 

I  am  greatly  mistaken  if  there  be  any  limitation  whatsoever,  with 
respect  to  the  nature  or  jurisdiction  of  these  courts.  If  there  be  any 
limits,  they  must  be  contained  in  one  of  the  clauses  of  this  section; 
and  I  believe,  on  a  dispassionate  discussion,  it  will  be  found  that 
there  is  none  of  any  check.  All  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are 
paramount  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  any  single  state.  “The 
judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity,  arising 
under  this  constitution.”  What  objects  will  not  this  expression  ex¬ 
tend  to?  Such  laws  may  be  formed,  as  will  go  to  every  object  of 
private  property.  When  we  consider  the  nature  of  these  courts,  we 
must  conclude,  that  their  effect  and  operation  will  be  utterly  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  state  governments.  For  they  will  be  the  judges  how  far 
their  laws  will  opetate.  They  are  to  modify  their  own  courts,  and 
you  can  make  no  state  law  to  counteract  them.  The  discrimination 
between  their  judicial  power,  and  that  of  the  states,  exists,  there¬ 
fore,  but  in  name.  To  what  disgraceful  and  dangerous  length  does 
the  principal  of  this  go?  For  if  your  state  judiciaries  are  not  to  be 
trusted  with  the  administration  of  common  justice,  and  decision  of 
disputes  respecting  property  between  man  and  man,  much  less  ought 
the  state  governments  to  be  trusted  with  power  of  legislation.  The 
principle  itself  goes  to  the  destruction  of  the  legislation  of  the  states, 
whether  or  not  it  was  intended.  As  to  my  own  opinion,  I  most  reli¬ 
giously  and  conscentiously  believe,  that  it  was  intended,  though  I 
am  not  absolutely  certain.  But  I  think  it  will  destroy  the  state  go¬ 
vernments,  whatever  may  have  been  the  intention.  There  are  many 
gentlemen  in  the  United  Ststes  who  think  it  right,  that  we  should 
have  one  great  national  consolidated  government,  and  that  it  was 
better  to  bring  it  about  slowly  and  imperceptibly,  rather  than  all  at 
once.  This  is  no  reflection  on  any  man,  for  I  mean  none.  To  those 
who  think  that  one  national  consolidated  government  be  best  for 
America,  this  extensive  judicial  authority  will  be  agreeable  ;  but  1 
hope  there  are  many  in  this  convention  of  a  different  opinion,  and 
who  see  their  political  happiness  resting  on  their  state  governments. 
I  know,  from  my  own  knowledge,  many  worthy  gentlemen  of  the 
former  opinion. 

[Here  Mr  Madison  interrupted  Mr  Mason,  and  demanded  an  une¬ 
quivocal  explanation.  As  these  insinuations  might  create  a  belief, 
that  every  member  of  the  late  federal  convention  was  of  that  opin¬ 
ion,  he  wished  him  to  tell  who  the  gentlemen  were  to  whom  he  al¬ 
luded.] 


VIRGINIA. 


477 


Mason.] 

Mr  MASON  then  leplied,  I  shall  never  refuse  to  explain  myself* 
It  is  notorious  that  tht3  is  a  prevailing  principle.  It  was  at  least  the 
opinion  of  many  gentlemen  in  convention,  and  many  in  the  United 
States.  I  do  not  know  what  explanation  the  honorable  gentleman 
asks.  I  can  say  with  great  truth,  that  the  honorable  gentleman,  in 
private  conversation  with  me,  expressed  himself  against  it:  neither 
did  I  ever  hear  any  of  the  delegates  from  this  state  advocate  it. 

Mr  MADISON  declared  himself  satisfied  with  this,  unless  the 
committee  thought  themselves  entitled  to  ask  a  further  explanation. 

After  some  desultory  remarks,  Mr  Mason  continued.  I  have 
heard  that  opinion  advocated  by  gentlemen,  for  whose  abilities,  judg- 
ment,  and  knowledge,  I  have  the  highest  reverence  and  respect.  I 
say  that  the  general  description  of  the  judiciary  involves  the  most 
extensive  jurisdiction.  Its  cognizance  in  all  cases  arising undei  the 
system,  and  the  laws  of  congress,  may  be  said  to  be  unlimited.  In 
the  next  place  it  extends  to  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made, 
under  their  authority.  This  is  one  of  the  powers  whidh  ought  to  be 
given  them.  I  also  admit  that  they  ought  to  have  judicial  cogni- 
zance  in  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  foreign  ministers,  and  con¬ 
suls,  as  well  in  cases  of  maratime  jurisdiction.  There  is  an  addi¬ 
tional  reason  now  to  give  them  this  last  power:  because  congress  be¬ 
sides  the  general  powers,  are  about  to  get  that  of  regulating  com¬ 
merce  of  foreign  nations.  This  is  a  power  which  existed  before, 
and  is  a  proper  subject  of  federal  jurisdiction.  The  next  power  of 
the  judiciary  is  also  necessary  under  some  restrictions.  Though  the 
decision  of  controversies  to  which  the  United  States  shall  be  a 
party,  may  at  first  view  seem  proper,  it  may  without  restraint,  be 
extended  to  a  dangerously  oppressive  length.  The  next,  with  re¬ 
spect  to  disputes  between  two  or  more  states,  is  right.  I  cannot  see 
ihe  propriety  of  the  next  power,  in  disputes  between  a  state  and  the 
citizens  of  another  state.  As  to  controversies  between  citizens  of 
different  states,  their  power  is  improper  and  inadmissible.  In  dis¬ 
putes  between  citizens  of  the  same  state,  claiming  lands  under  the 
grants  of  different  states,  the  power  is  proper.  It  is  the  only  case 
in  which  the  federal  judiciary  ought  to  have  appellate  cognizance  of 
disputes  between  private  citizens.  Unless  this  was  the  case,  the 
suit  must  be  brought  and  decided  in  one,  or  the  other  state,  under 
whose  grant  the  lands  are  claimed,  which  would  be  injurious,  as  the 
decision  must  be  consistent  with  the  grant. 

The  last  clause  is  still  more  improper.  To  give  them  cognizance 
in  disputes  between  a  state  and  the  citizens  thereof,  is  utterly  incon¬ 
sistent  with  reason  or  good  policy. 

Here  Mr  NICHOLAS  arose,  and  informed  Mr  Mason,  that  his 
interpretation  of  this  part  was  not  warranted  by  the  words. 


**78 


DEBATES. 


[Mascwjv 


Mr  MASON  replied,  that  if  he  recollected  rightly,  the  propriety 
~©f  the  power  as  explained  by  him,  had  been  contended  for,  bat  that 
as  his  memory  had  never  been  good,  and  was  now  impaired  much 
from  his  age,  he  would  not  insist  on  that  interpretation.  He  then 
proceeded: — Give  me  leave  to  advert  to  the  operation  of  this  judicial 
power.  Its  jurisdiction  in  the  first  case  will  extend  to  all  cases 
affecting  revenue,  excise,  and  custom  house  officers.  If  I  am  mista¬ 
ken  I  will  retract.  “  All  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under  thia 
constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  states,  take  in  all  the  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  government.  They  comprehend  all  those  who  act  a* 
collectors  of  taxes,  excisemen,  &c.  It  will  take  in  of  course  what 
others  do  to  them,  and  what  is  done  by  them  to  others.  In  what 
predicament  will  our  citizens  then  be?  We  know  the  difficulty  w» 
are  put  in  by  our  own  courts,  and  how  hard  it  is  to  bring  officers  to 
justice  even  in  them.  If  any  of  the  federal  officers  should  be  guilty 
of  the  greatest  oppressions,  or  behave  with  the  most  insolent  and 
wanton  brutality  to  a  man’s  wife  or  daughter,  where  is  this  man  to 
get  relief?*  If  you  suppose  in  the  inferior  courts,  they  are  not  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  states.  They  are  not  men  in  whom  the  community 
-can  place  confidence.  It  will  be  decided  by  federal  judges.  Even 
suppose  the  poor  man  should  be  able  to  obtain  judgment  in  the  in¬ 
ferior  court,  for  the  greatest  injury,  what  justice  can  he  get  on  ap* 
peal?  Can  he  go  400  or  500  miles?  Can  he  stand  the  expenco  at** 
tending  it?  On  this  occasion  they  are  to  judge  of  fact  as  well  as 
law.  He  must  bring  his  witnesses  where  he  is  not  known,  where 
a  new  evidence  may  be  brought  against  him,  of  wrhich  he  never 
heard  before,  and  which  he  cannot  contradict. 

The  honorable  gentleman,  who  presides  here,  has  told  us,  that  the 
supreme  court  of  appeals  must  embrace  every  object  of  maritime, 
chancery,  and  common  law  controversy.  In  the  two  first,  the  indis¬ 
criminate  appellate  jurisdiction  as  to  fact,  must  be  generally  grant¬ 
ed;  because  otherwise  it  could  exclude  appeals  in  those  cases.  But 
why  not  discriminate  as  to  matters  of  fact  as  to  common  law  coo- 
troversies?  The  honorable  gentleman  has  allowed  that  it  was  dan¬ 
gerous,  but  hopes  regulations  will  be  made  to  suit  the  convenience 
<of  the  people.  But  mere  hope  is  not  a  sufficient  security.  I  hav» 
said  that  it  appears  to  me  (though  I  am  no  lawyer)  to  be  very  dan¬ 
gerous.  Give  me  leave  to  lay  before  the  committee  an  amendment, 
which  I  think  convenient,  easy,  and  proper. 

[Here  Mr.  Mason  proposed  an  alteration  nearly  the  same  as  ths 
first  part  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  recommended  by  the  conven¬ 
tion,  which  see  at  the  conclusion.] 

Thus,  Sir,  said  Mr,  Mason,  after  limiting  the  cases  in  which  thft 


VIRGINIA. 


*79 


federal  judiciary  could  interpose,  I  would  confine  the  appellate  ju¬ 
risdiction  to  matters  of  law  only,  in  common  law  controversies. 

It  appears  to  me  that  this  will  remove  oppressions,  and  answer 
every  purpose  of  an  appellate  power. 

A  discrimination  arises  between  common  law  trials  and  trials  ia 
courts  of  equity  and  admiralty.  In  these  two  last,  depositions  ar® 
committed  to  record,  and  therefore  on  an  appeal  the  whole  fact  goes 
up;  the  equity  of  the  whole  case,  comprehending  fact  and  law,  is 
considered,  and  no  new  evidence  requisite.  Is  it  so  in  courts  of 
common  law!  There  evidence  is  only  given  viva  voce..  I  know  not 
a  single  case,  where  there  is  an  appeal  of  fact  as  to  common  law. 
But  I  may  be  mistaken.  Where  there  is  an  appeal  from  an  inferior 
to  a  superior  court,  with  respect  to  matters  of  fact,  a  new  witness 
may  be  introduced,  who  is  perhaps  suborned  by  the  other  party,  a 
'thousand  miles  from  the  place  where  the  first  trial  was  had.  These 
are  some  of  the  inconveniences  and  insurmountable  objection® 
against  this  general  power  being  given  to  the  federal  courts.  Gen¬ 
tlemen  will  perhaps  say,  there  will  be  no  occasion  to  carry  up  tho 
evidence  by  viva  voce  testimony,  because  congress  may  order  it  to  bo 
committed  to  writing,  and  transmitted  in  that  manner  with  the  rest 
of  the  record.  It  is  true  they  may,  but  it  is  as  true  that  they  may 
not.  But  suppose  they  do,  little  conversant  as  1  am  in  this  subject, 
I  know  there  is  a  great  difference  between  viva  voce  evidence  given 
at  the  bar,  and  testimony  given  in  writing.  I  leave  it  to  gentlemen 
more  conversant  in  these  matters  to  discuss  it.  They  are  also  to 
have  cognizance  in  controversies  to  which  the  United  States  shall 
be  a  party.  This  power  is  superadded,  that  there  might  be  no  doubt, 
and  that  all  cases  arising  under  the  government  might  be  brought 
before  the  federal  court.  Gentlemen  will  not,  I  presume,  deny  that 
all  revenue  and  excise  controversies,  and  all  proceedings  relative  to 
the  duties  of  the  officers  of  government,  from  the  highest  to  th® 
’lowest,  may,  and  must  be  brought  by  these  means  to  the  federal 
-.courts;  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  inferior  federal  court,  and  after¬ 
wards  to  the  superior  court.  Every  fact  proved  with  respect  to 
these,  in  the  court  below,  may  be  revived  in  the  superior  court. 
But  this  appellate  jurisdiction  is  to  be  under  the  regulations  of  con¬ 
gress.  What  these  regulations  may  be,  God  only  knows. 

Their  jurisdiction  further  extends  to  controversies  between  citizen 
of  different  states.  Can  we  not  trust  our  state  courts  with  the  de¬ 
cision  of  these'?  If  I  have  a  controversy  with  a  man  in  Maryland 
•if  a  man  in  Maryland  has  my  bond  for  £100,  are  not  the  state  courts 
competent  to  try  it?  Is  it  suspected  that  they  would  enforce  th# 
'.payment  if  unjust,  or  refuse  to  enforce  it  if  just?  The  very  idea  is 
ridiculous.  What,  carry  me  a  thousand  miles  from  home — from  my 


m 


DEBATES. 


[Masojt. 


family  and  business,  where,  perhaps,  it  will  be  impossible  for  me 
to  prove  that  I  paid  it?  Perhaps  I  have  a  respectable  witness  who 
saw  me  pay  the  money;  but  I  must  carry  him  one  thousand  miles 
to  prove  it,  or  be  compelled  to  pay  it  again.  Is  there  any  necessity 
for  this  power?  It  ought  to  have  no  unnecessary  or  dangerous  power. 
Why  should  the  federal  courts  have  this  cognizance?  Is  it  because 
one  lives  on  one  side  of  the  Potomac,  and  the  other  on  the  ether? 
Suppose  I  have  your  bond  for  d01OOO — if  I  have  any  wish  to  harass 
you,  or  if  I  be  of  a  litigious  disposition,  I  have  only  to  assign  it  to  a 
gentleman  in  Maryland.  This  assignment  will  involve  you  in 
trouble  and  expense.  What  effect  will  this  power  have  between 
British  creditors  and  the  citizens  of  this  state?  This  is  a  ground 
ort  which  I  shall  speak  with  confidence.  Every  one  who  heard  mo 
speak  on  the  subject,  knows,  that  I  always  spoke  for  the  payment 
of  the  British  debts.  I  wish  every  honest  debt  to  be  paid.  Though 
I  would  wish  to  pay  the  British  creditor,  yet  I  would  not  put  it  in 
his  power  to  gratify  private  malice  to  our  injury.  Let  me  be  put 
right  if  I  be  mistaken.  But  there  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  a  single 
British  creditor,  but  who  can  bring  his  debtors  to  tho  federal  court. 

There  are  a  thousand  instances  where  debts  have  been  paid,  and 
yet  must  by  this  appellate  cognizance  be  paid  again.  Are  these 
imaginary  cases?  Are  they  only  possible  cases,  or  are  they  certain 
and  inevitable?  “  To  controversies  between  a  state,  and  the  citizens 
of  another  state.”  How  will  their  jurisdiction  in  this  case  do?  Let 
gentlemen  look  at  the  westward.  Claims  respecting  those  lands, 
every  liquidated  account,  cr  other  claim  against  this  state,  will  be 
tried  before  the  federal  court.  Is  not  this  disgraceful?  Is  this  state 
to  be  brought  to  the  bar  of  justice  like  a  delinquent  individual?  Is 
the  sovereignty  of  the  state  to  be  arraigned  like  a  culprit,  or  private 
offender?  Will  the  states  undergo  this  mortification?  I  think  this 
power  perfectly  unnecessary.  But  let  us  pursue  this  subject  further. 
What  is  to  be  done  if  a  judgment  be  obtained  against  a  state?  Will 
you  issue  a  fieri  facias ?  It  would  be  ludicrous  to  say,  that  you  could 
put  the  stale’s  body  in  jail.  IIow  is  the  judgment  then  to  be  en¬ 
forced?  A  power  which  cannot  be  executed,  ought  not  to  be  granted. 

Let  us  consider  the  operation  of  the  last  subject  of  its  cognizance. 
Controversies  between  a  state,  or  the  citizens  thereof,  and  foreign 
states,  citizens  or  subjects.  There  is  a  confusion  in  this  case.  This 
much,  however,  may  be  raised  out  of  it — that  a  suit  will  be  brought 
against  Virginia.  She  may  be  sued  by  a  foreign  state.  What  re- 
ciprocrity  is  there  in  it?  In  a  suit  between  Virginia  and  a  foreign 
state,  is  the  foreign  state  to  be  bound  by  the  decision?  Is  there  a 
similar  privilege  given  to  us  in  foreign  states?  Where  will  you  find 
a  parallel  regulation?  How  will  the  decision  be  enforced?  Only  by 


Mason.] 


VIRGINIA. 


481 


the  ultima  ratio  regum.  A  dispute  between  a  foreign  citizen  or  sub¬ 
ject,  and  a  Virginian,  cannot  be  tried  in  our  own  courts,  but  must 
be  decided  in  the  federal  court.  Is  this  the  case  in  any  other  coun¬ 
try?  Are  not  men  obliged  to  stand  by  the  laws  of  the  country  where 
the  disputes  are?  This  is  an  innovation  which  is  utterly  unprece¬ 
dented  and  unheard  ot.  Cannot  we  trust  the  state  courts  with  dis¬ 
putes  between  a  Frenchman,  or  an  Englishman,  and  a  citizen;  or 
with  disputes  between  two  Fienchmen?  This  is  disgraceful:  it  will 
annihilate  your  state  judiciary:  it  will  prostrate  your  legislature. 

Thus,  sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  greater  part  of  these  powers 
are  unnecessary,  and  dangerous,  as  tending  to  impair  and  ultimately 
destroy  the  state  judiciaries,  and  by  the  same  principle,  the  legisla¬ 
tion  of  the  state  governments.  To  render  it  safe  there  must  be  an 
amendment,  such  as  I  have  pointed  out.  After  mentioning  the 
original  jurisdiction  of- the  supreme  court,  which  extends  to  but 
three  cases,  it  gives|its  appellate  jurisdiction  in  all  other  cases  men¬ 
tioned,  both  as  to  law  and  fact,  indiscriminately  and  without  limi¬ 
tation.  Why  not  remove  the  cause  of  fear  and  danger?  But  it  is 
said  that  the  regulations  of  congress  will  remove  these.  I  say,  that 
in  ray  opinion  they  will  have  a  contrary  effect,  and  will  utterly 
annihilate  your  state  courts.  Who  are  the  court?  The  judges.  'It  is 
a  familiar  distinction.  We  frequently  speak  of  a  court  in  contradic¬ 
tion  to  a  jury.  I  think  the  court  are  to  be  the  judges  of  this.  The 
judges  on  the  bench,  are  to  be  judges  cf  fact  and  law,  with  such 
exceptions,  &c.  as  congress  shall  make.  Now  give  me  leave  to 
ask,  is  not  a  jury  excluded  absolutely?  By  way  of  illustration, 
were  congress  to  say  that  a  jury,  instead  of  a  court,  should  judge 
the  fact,  will  not  the  court  be  still  judges  of  the  fact  consistently 
with  this  constitution?  Congress  may  make  such  a  regulation,  or 
may  not.  But  suppose  they  do,  what  sort  of  a  jury  would  they  have 
in  the  ten  miles  square  ?  1  would  rather  a  thousand  times  be  tried 

by  a  , court  than  by  such  a  jury.  This  great  palladium  of  national 
safety,  which  is  secured  to  us  by  our  own  government,  will  be  taken 
from  us  in  those  courts;  or  if  it  be  reserved,  it  will  be  but  in  name, 
and  not  in  substance,  dn  the  government  of  Virginia  we  have ;  se¬ 
cured  an  impartial  jury  of  the  vicinage.  V*.  e  can  except  to  jurors 
and  peremptorily  challenge  them  in  criminal. trials.  If  I  be, tried  in 
the  federal  court  for  a  crime  which  may  affect  my  life,  have  I  a 
right  of  challenging  or  excepting  to  the  jury  ?  Have  not  the  best 
men  suffered  by  weak  and  partial  juries  ?  This  sacred  right  ought 
therefore,  to  he  secured.  I  dread  the  ruin  that  will  be  brought  on 
thirty  thousand  of  our  people,  with  respect  to  disputed  lands.  I  am 
personally  endangered  as  a-  inhabitant  of  the  Northern  Neck.  The 
people  of  that  part  wiii  be  . .bilged,  .by  the  operation  of  this  power, 
.voL.  3  31 


482 


DEBATES, 


to  pay  the  quit  rent  of  their  lands.  Whatever  other  gentlemen  may 
think,  I  consider  this  as  a  most  serious  alarm.  It  will  little  avail  a 
man  to  make  a  profession  of  his  candour*  .  It  is  to  his  character  and 
reputation  they  will  appeal.  Let  gentlemen  consider  my  public  and 
private  character.  To  these  I  wish  gentlemen  to  appeal  for  an  in- 
terpetration  of  my  motives  and  views.  Lord  Fairfax’s  title  was 
clear  and  undisputed.  After  the  revolution,  we  taxed  his  lands  as 
private  property.  After  his  death,  an  act  of  assembly  was  made, 
in  1782,  to  sequester  the  quit  rents  due  at  his  death,  in  the  hands  of 
his  debtors.  Next  year  an  act  was  made  restoring  them  to  the  ex¬ 
ecutor  of  the  proprietor.  Subsequent  to  this  the  treaty  of  peace  was 
made,  by  which  it  Was  agreed,  that  there  should  be  no  further  con¬ 
fiscations.  But  after  this  an  act  of  assembly  passed,  confiscating 
this  whole  property.  As  Lord  Fairfax’s  title  was  indisputably 
good,  and  as  treaties  are  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  wil 
not  this  representatives  be  able  to  recover  all  in  the  federal  court? 
How  will  gentlemen  like  to  pay  additional  tax  on  lands  in  the 
Northern  Neck?  This  the  operation  of  this  system  will  compel  them 
to  do.  They  now  are  subject  to  the  same  tax  that  other  citizens  are, 
and  if  the  quit  rents  be  recovered  in  the  federal  court,  they  are 
doubly  taxed.  This  may  be  called  an  assertion,  but  were  I  going  to 
my  grave,  I  would  appeal  to  heaven  that  I  think  it  tiue.  How 
will  a  poor  man,  who  is  injured  or  dispossessed  unjustly,  get  a 
remedy?  Is  he  to  go  to  the  federal  court,  seven  or  eight  hundred 
miles?  He  might  as  well  give  his  claim  up.  He  may  grumble,  but 
finding  no  relief,  he  will  be  contented. 

Again,  all  that  tract  of  country  between  the  Blue  Ridge  and  the 
Alleghany  Mountains,  will  be  claimed,  and  probably  recovered  in 
the  federal  court,  from  the  present  possessors,  by  those  companies 
Who  have  a  title  to  them.  These  lands  have  been  sold  to  a  great 
number  of  people.  Many  settled  on  them,  on  terms  which  were  ad¬ 
vertised.  How  will  this  be  with  respect  to  ex  post  facto  laws?  We 
have  not  only  confirmed  the  title  of  those  who  made  the  contract, 
but  those  who  did  not,  by  a  law  in  1799*  on  their  paying  the  origin¬ 
al  price.  Much  was  paid  in  a  depreciated  value,  and  much  was 
not  paid  at  all.  Again,  the  great  Indiana  purchase  which  was  made 
to  the  westward,  will  by  this  judicial  power,  be  rendered  a  cause  of 
dispute.  The  possessors  may  be  ejected  from  those  lands.  That 
company  paid  a  consideration  of  ten  thousand  pounds  to  the  crown, 
before  the  lands  were  taken  Up.  I  have  heard  gentlemen  of  the  law 
say,  (and  I  believe  it  is  right)  that  after  the  consideration  was  paid 
to  the  crown,  the  purchase  was  legally  made,  and  ought  to  be  valid. 
That  company  may  come  in,  and  shew  that  they  have  paid  tho 
money,  and  have  a  full  right  to  the  land.  Of  the  Indiana  company 


VIRGINIA. 


483 


Madison.] 

I  need  not  say  much.  It  is  well  known  that  their  claims  will  be 
brought  before  these  courts.  Three  or  four  counties  are  settled  on 
l“e  lands  to  which  that  company  claims  a  title,  and  have  long  en¬ 
joyed  it  peaceably.  All  these  claims  before  those  courts,  if  they 
succeed,  will  introduce  a  scene  of  distress  and  confusion  never  heard 
of  before.  Our  peasants  will  be  like  those  mentioned  by  Virgil  re¬ 
duced  to  ruin  and  misery;  driven  from  their  farms,  and  obliged  to 
leave  their  country. _ 

Nos  patriam  fugimus — et  dulcia  linqiiimus  arva. 

Having  mentioned  these  things,  give  me  leave  to  submit  an 
airendment,  which  I  think  would  be  proper  and  safe,  and  would 
render  our  citizens  secure  in  their  possessions  justly  held.  I  mean, 
sir,  “‘that  the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  no  case  where  the  cause 
of  action  shall  have  originated  before  the  ratification  of  this  consti- 
£ution, except  in  suits  due  for  debts  due  to  theUnited  States;  disputes 
between  states  about  their  territory ;  and  disputes  between  persons 
claiming  lands  under  the  grants  of  different  states,”  In  these  cases 
there  is  an  obvious  necessity  for  giving  it  a  retrospective  power. 
I  have  laid  before  you  my  idea. on  the  subject,  and  expressed  my 
fears,  which  I  most  conscientiously  believe  to  be  well  founded. 

Mr  MADISON.- — Mr  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman  having 
persuaded  himself  that  it  was  calculated  to  destroy  the  state  govern¬ 
ments,  and  to  dispossess  of  their  property,  so  gTeat  a  proportion  of 
this  commonwealth,  I  am  not  surprised  at  the  opposition  he  has 
made.  But  being  equally  persuaded  that  his  feais  are  groundless, 
I  will  endeavor  to  refute  his  objections  where  they  do  not  appear 
■to  me  to  be  well  founded.  I  shall  be  candid  in  my  remarks.  I 
acknowledge  that  this  part  does  not  stand  in  that  form,  which  would 
be  freest  from  objection.  It  might  be  better  expressed. 

But  at  the  same  time,  truth  obliges  me  to  put  a  fair  and  liberal 
interpretation  upon  the  words.  I  believe  the  general  government 
will  do  what  is  for  the  interest  of  the  United  States;  because  they 
have  no  substantial  reason  or  inducement  to  violate  their  duty,  nor 
are  they  warranted  by  this  part  of  the  plan  to  commit  the  oppres¬ 
sions  he  dreads.  The  general  policy  of  that  clause,  is  to  prevent 
all  occasions  of  having  disputes  with  foreign  powers,  to  prevent  dis¬ 
putes  between  different  states,  and  remedy  partial  decisions.  I  be¬ 
lieve  this  to  be  wise  and  salutary.  The  lateness  of  the  hour  prevents 
my  entering  fully  into  the  subject  now.  I  shall  reserve  my  answer 
to  some  othei  day.  But  I  cannot  sit  down  without  adding  a  few 
words.  He  is  displeased  that  there  is  no  provision  for  peremptory 
-challenges  to  juries.  There  i9  no  such  provision  made  in  our  con¬ 
stitution  or  laws.  The  answer  made  by  an  honorable  member  late* 


484 


DEBATES. 


[Madisox* 


ly,  is  a  Full  answer  to  this.  He  said,  and  with  great  propriety  and 
truth,  that  where  a  technical  word  was  used,  all  the  incidents  be¬ 
longing  to  it,  necessarily  attended  it.  The  right  of  challenging  i» 
incident  to  the  trial  by  jury,  and  therefore  as  the  one  is  secured,  so 
is  the  other.  I  hope  gentlemen  will  see  that  the  dangers  he  ha* 
-;pointed  out  do  not  necessarily  follow. 

Friday  theSOth  of  June ,  1788. 

The  1st  and  2d  section,  of  the  3d  article,  still  under  considera¬ 
tion  .] 

Mr  MADISON — Mr  Chairman,  permit  me  to  make  a  few  obser¬ 
vations  which  may  place  this  part  in  a  more  favorable  light  than 
the  gentleman  placed  it  in  yesterday.  It  may  be  proper  to  remark, 
that  the  organization  of  the  general  government  for  the  United  States 
was  in  all  its  parts,  very  difficult.  There  was  a  peculiar  difficulty 
in  that  of  the  Executive.  Every  thing  incident  toit  must  have  par¬ 
ticipated  of  that  difficulty.  That  mode  which  was  judged  most  ex¬ 
pedient  was  adopted,  till  experience  should  point  out  one  more  elegi- 
ble.  This  part  was  also  attended  with  difficulties.  It  claims  th* 
indulgence  of  a  fair  and  liberal  Interpretation.  I  will  not  deny  that 
according  to  my  view  of  the  subject,  a  more  accurate  attention  might 
place  it  in  terms  which  would  exclude  some  of  the  objections  now 
made  to  it.  But  if  we  take  liberal  construction,  I  think  wo  shall 
find  nothing  dangerous  or  inadmissible  in  it.  In  compositions  of 
this  kind,  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  technical  terms  which  have  the 
same  meaning.  An  intention  to  this  may  satisfy  gentlemen,  that 
precision  was  not  so  easily  obtained -as  may  be  imagined.  I  will 
:  Illustrate  this  by  one  thing  m  the  constitution.  There  is  a  general 
power  to  provide  courts  to  try  felonies  and  piracies  committed  on  the 
high  seas.  Piiacy  is  a  word  which  may  be  considered  as  a  term  of 
the  law  of  nations.  Felony  is  a  word  unknown  -to  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions,  and  is  to  be  found  in  the  British  laws,  and  from  thence  adop¬ 
ted  in  the  law  of  these  stales.  It  was  thought  dishonorable  to  have 
recourse  to  that  standard.  A  technical  term  o-f  the  law  of  nations 
is  therefore  used  that  we  should  find  ourselves  authorised  to  intro¬ 
duce  it  into  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  The  first  questionwhich 
I  shall  consider,  is  whether  the  subjects  of  its  cognizance  be  proper 
subjects  of  a  federal  jurisdiction.-  The  second  will  be,  whether  the 
provisions  respecting  it  be  consistent  with  safety  and  propriety, 
will  answer  the  purposes  intended,  and  suit  local  circumstances. 

The  first  class  of  cases  to  which  its  jurisdiction  extends,  are 
•those  which  may  rise  under  the  constitution?  and  this  is  to  extend 
-  to  equity  as  well  as  law.  It  may  be  a  misfortune,  that  in  organi¬ 
sing  any  government,  the  expiication  of  its  authority  should  be  left 


MAmiON.]  VIRGINIA.  485 

to  any  of  its  co-ordinate  branches.  There  is  no  example  in  any 
country  where  it  is  otherwise.  There  is  a  new  policy  in  submit¬ 
ting  it  to  the  judiciary  of  the  United  States.  That  causes  of  a  fed¬ 
eral  nature  will  arise,  will  be  obvious  to  every  gentleman,  who  will 
recollect  that  the  states  are  laid  under  restrictions ;  and  that  tho 
rights  of  the  union  are  secured  by  these  restrictions.  They  may  in¬ 
volve  equitable  as  well  as  legal  controversies.  V/  ith  respect  to  tho 
laws  of  the  union,  it  is  so  necessary  and  expedient  that  the  judicial 
power  should  correspond  with  the  legislative,  that  it  has  not  been 
objected  to.  With  respect  to  treaties,  there  is  a  peculiar  propriety 
in  the  judiciary  expounding  them. 

These  may  involve  us  in  contioversies  with  foreign  nations.  It 
Is  necessary  therefore,  that  they  should  be  determined  in  the  courts 
of  the  general  government.  There  are  strong  reasons  why  there 
should  be  a  supreme  court  to  decide  such  disputes.  If  in  any  case 
uniformity  be  necessary,  it  must  be  in  the  exposition  of  treaties. 
The  establishment  of  one  revisionary  superintending  power,  can 
alone  secure  such  uniformity.  The  same  principles  hold  with  re¬ 
spect  to  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  and  foreign  ministers.  To 
the  sameprinciples  may  also  be  referred  their  cognizance  in  admi¬ 
ralty  and  maritime  cases.  As  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
will  be  affected  by  decisions  of  this  kind,  they  ought  to  be  uniform. 
This  can  only  be  done  by  giving  the  federal  judiciary  exclusive  ju¬ 
risdiction.  Controversies  affecting  the  interest  of  the  United  States 
ought  to  be  determined  by  their  own  judiciary,  and  not  be  left  to 
partial  local  tribunals. 

The  next  case,  where  two  or  more  states  are  the  parties,  is  not 
objected  to.  Provision  is  made  for  this  by  the  existing  articles  of 
confederation,  and  there  can  be  no  impropriety  in  referring  such 
disputes  to  this  tribunal. 

Its  jurisdiction  in  controversies  between  a  state  and  citizens  of 
another  state,  is  much  objected  to,  and  perhaps  without  reason.  It 
is  not  in  the  power  of  individuals  to  call  any  state  into  court.  Tho 
only  operation  it  can  have,  is  that  if  a  state  should  wish  to  bring 
suit  against  a  citizen,  it  must  be  brought  before  the  federal  court. 
This  will  give  satisfaction  to  individual's,  as  it  wilF  prevent  citi¬ 
zens  on  whom  a  state  may  have  a  claim,  being  dissatisfied  with 
the  state  courts.  It  is  a  case  which  cannot  often  happen,  and  if  it 
should  be  found  improper,  it  will  be  altered.  But  it  maybe  attend¬ 
ed  with  good  effects.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  other  cases.  It 
fa  provided,  that  citizens  of  different  states  may  be  carried  to  tho 
federal  courts. 

But  this  will  not  go  beyond  the  cases  where  they  may  bo  par- 
A  femme  covert  may  be  a  citizen  of  another  state,  but  cannest 


486  DEBATES.  [Madisok. 

be  a  party  in  this  court.  A  subject  of  a  foreign  power  having  a  dis¬ 
pute  with  a  citizen  of  this  state,  may  carry  it  to  the  federal  court 
but  an  alien  enemy  cannot  bring  suit  at  all.  It  appears  to  me,  that 
this  can  have  no  operation  but  this — to  give  a  citizen  a  light  to  be 
heard  in  the  federal  courts;  and  if  a  state  should  condescend  to  be  a 
party,  this  court  may  take  cognizance  of  it. 

As  to  its  cognizance  of  disputes  between  citizens  of  different 
states,  I  will  not  say  it  is  a  matter  of  such  importance.  Perhaps  it 
might  be  left  to  the  state  courts.  But  I  sincerely  believe  this  pro¬ 
vision  will  be  rather  salutary,  than  otherwise.  It  may  happen  that 
a  strong  prejudice  may  arise  in  some  states,  against  the  citizens  of 
others,  who  may  have  claims  against  them.  We  know  what  tardy, 
and  even  defective  administration  of  justice,  has  happened  in  some 
*tates.  A  citizen  of  another  state  might  not  chance  to  get  justice 
in  a  state  court,  and  at  all  events  he  might  think  himself  injured. 

To  the  next  clause  there  is  no  objection. 

The  next  case  provides  for  disputes  between  a  foreign  state,  and 
one  of  our  states,  should  such  a  case  ever  arise;  and  between  a  cit¬ 
izen  and  a  foreign  citizen  or  subject.  I  do  not  conceive  that  any 
controversy  can  ever  be  decided  in  these  courts,  between  an  Ameri¬ 
can  state  and  a  foreign  state,  without  the  consent  of  the  parties.  If 
they  consent,  provision  is  here  made.  The  disputes  ought  to  be 
tried  by  the  national  tribunal.  This  is  consonant  to  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions.  Could  there  be  a  more  favorable  or  eligible  provision  to 
avoid  controversies  with  foreign  powers'?  Ought  it  to  be  put  in  the 
power  of  a  member  of  the  union  to  drag  the  whole  community  into 
war?  As  the  national  tribunal  is  to  decide,  justice  will  be  done. 
It  appears  to  me  from  this  review,  that,  though  on  some  of  the  sub¬ 
jects  of  this  jurisdiction,  it  may  seldom  or  never  operate,  and  though 
others  be  of  inferior  consideration,  yet  they  are  mostly  of  great  im¬ 
portance,  and  indispensably  necessary. 

The  second  question  which  I  proposed  to  consider,  was,  whether 
such  organization  be  made  as  would  be  safe  and  convenient  for  the 
states  and  the  people  at  large.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  subjects  of 
its  jurisdiction  has  only  enumerated,  and  power  given  to  the  general 
legislature  to  establish  such  courts  as  might  be  judged  necessary 
and  expedient,  do  not  think  that  in  that  case  any  rational  objection 
could  be  made  to  it,  any  more  than  wTould  be  made  to  a  general  pow¬ 
er  of  legislation  in  certain  enumerated  cases.  If  that  would  be  safe, 
this  appears  to  me  better  and  more  restrictive,  so  far  as  it  may  be 
abused  by  extension  of  power.  The  most  material  part  is  the  dis* 
crimination  of  superior  and  inferior  jurisdiction,  and  the  arrange¬ 
ment  of  its  powers;  as,  where  it  shall  have  original,  and  where  ap¬ 
pellate  cognizance.  Where  it  speaks  of  appellate  jurisdiction,  it 


Madison 


VIRGIGIA. 


487 


-expressly  provides,  that  such  regulations  will  be  made  as  will  ac¬ 
commodate  every  citizen;  so  far  as  practicable  in  any  government. 
The  principal  criticism  which  has  been  made,  was  against  the  ap¬ 
pellate  cognizance,  as  well  of  fact  as  law.  I  am  happy  that  the 
honorable  member  who  presides,  and  who  is  familiarly  acquainted 
with  the  subject,  does  not  think  it  involves  any  thing  unnecessarily 
dangerous.  I  think  that  the  distinction  of  fact  as  well  as  law,  may 
be  satisfied  by  the  discrimination  of  the  civil  and  common  law. 
But  if  gentlemen  should  contend,  that  appeals,  as  to  fact,  can  be 
extended  to  jury  cases,  I  contend,  that  by  the  word  regulations,  it  ia 
in  the  power  of  congress  to  prevent  it,  or  prescribe  such  a  mode  as 
will  secure  the  privilege  of  jury  trial.  They  may  make  a  regula¬ 
tion  to  prevent  such  appeals  entirely:  or  they  may  remand  the  fact, 
or  send  it  to  an  inferior  contiguous  court,  to  be  tried;  or  otherwise 
preserve  that  ancient  and  important  trial. 

Let  me  observe,  that  so  far  as  the  judicial  power  may  extend  to 
controversies  between  citizens  of  different  states,  and  so  far  as  it 
gives  them  power  to  correct  by  another  trial,  a  verdict  obtained  by 
local  prejudices,  it  is  favorable  to  those  states  who  carry  on  com¬ 
merce.  There  are  a  number  of  commercial  states,  who  carry  on 
r  ade,  for  other  states. — Should  the  states  in  debt  to  them  make  un¬ 
just  regulations,  the  justice  that  would  be  obtained  by  the  creditors, 
might  be  merely  imaginary  and  nominal.  It  might  be  either  en¬ 
tirely  denied,  or  partially  granted.  This  is  no  imaginary  evil.  Be¬ 
fore  the  war,  New  York  was  to  a  great  amount  a  creditor  of  Con¬ 
necticut:  while  it  depended  on  the  laws  and  regulations  of  Connec¬ 
ticut,  she  might  withhold  payment.  If  I  be  not  misinformed,  there 
were  reasons  to  complain.  These  illiberal  regulations *and  causes 
of  complaint,  obstruct  commerce.  So  far  as  this  power  may  be  ex¬ 
ercised,  Virginia  will  be  benefitted  by  it.  It  appears  to  me  from  the 
most  correct  view,  that  by  the  word  regulations,  authority  is  given 
them  to  provide  against  the  inconveniences,  and  so  far  as  it  is  ex¬ 
ceptionable,  they  can  remedy  it.  This  they  will  do  if  they  be 
worthy  of  the  trust  we  put  in  them.  I  think  them  worthy  of  that 
confidence  which  tha.1  paper  puts  in  them.  Were  I  to  select  a  pow- 
ei  which  might  be  given  with  confidence,  it  would  be  judicial  pow¬ 
er.  This  power  cannot  be  abused,  without  raising  the  indignation 
of  all  the  people  of  the  states.  I  cannot  conceive  that  they  would 
encounter  this  odium.  Leaving  behind  them  their  character  and 
and  friends,  and  carrying  with  them  local  prejudices,  I  cannot  think 
they  would  run  such  a  risk.  That  men  should  be  brought  from  all 
parts  of  the  union  to  the  seat  of  government,  on  trivial  occasions, 
cannot  reasonably  be  supposed.  It  is  a  species  of  possibility  ;  bu$ 


4SS 


DEBATES. 


[Madisof. 


there  is  every  decree  of  probability  against  it.  I  would  as  soon  be- 
lieve,  that  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  collecting  taxes  cr  customs, 
they  would  compel  every  man  to  go  and  pay  the  money  for  his  taxes 
with  his  own  hands  to  the  federal  treasurer,  as  I  would  believe  this. 
If  they  would  not  do  the  one,  they  would  not  the  other. 

I  am  of  opinion,  and  my  reasoning  and  conclusions  are  drawn  from 
facts,  that  as  far  as  the  power  of  congress  can  extend,  the  judicial 
power  will  be  accommodated  to  every  part  of  America.  Under  this 
conviction,  I  conclude,  that  the  legislation,  instead  of  making  the 
supreme  federal  court  absolutely  stationary,  will  fix  it  in  different 
parts  of  the  continent,  to  render  it  more  convenient.  I  think  this 
idea  perfectly  warrantable.  There  is  an  example,  within  onr  knowl¬ 
edge  which  illustrates  it.  Bv  the  confederation,  congress  Lave  an 
exclusive  right  of  establishing  rules  for  deciding  in  all  cases,  what 
captures  should  be  legal,  and  establishing  court?,  for  determining 
such  cases  finally.  A  court  was  established  for  that  purpose,  whicdi 
was  at  first  stationary. — Experience,  and  the  desire  of  accommoda¬ 
ting  the  decision  of  this  court  to  the  convenience  of  the  citizens  of 
the  different  parts  of  America,  had  this  effect — it  soon  became  a  reg¬ 
ulation,  that  this  court  should  beheld  in  different  parts  of  America, 
an  was  held  accordingly.  Tf  such  a  regulation  was  made,  when 
only  the  interest  of  the  small  number  of  people  who  are  concerned 
with  captures  was  affected,  will  not  the  public  convenience  be  con¬ 
sulted,  when  that  of  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  people  of 
America  will  be  concerned?  It  will  be  also  in  the  power  of  con¬ 
gress  to  vest  this  power  in  the  state  courts,  both  inferior  and  snpe- 
perior.  Th^s  they  will  do,  when  they  find  the  tribunals  of  the  state* 
established  on  a  rrood  footing. 

Another  example  will  allustrate  this  subject  further.  By  the 
confederation,  congress  are  authorized  to  establish  courts  for  trying 
piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  seas.  Did  they  multi  ply- 
courts  unnecessarily  in  this  case?  No,  Sir,  they  invested  the  admir¬ 
alty  courts  of  each  state  with  this  jurisdiction.  Xr*w,  sir.:-'  there  w ill 
he  as  raych  sympathy  between  congress  and  the  people,  as  now,  we 
may  fairly  conclude,  that  the  federal  cognizance  v-  ill  be  Vested  in  t.v* 
local  tribunals. 

I  have  observed,  that  gentlemen  suppose,  that  *  e  go-  cal  legisla- 
lurp  will  do  every  thing  mischief  they  possibly  can,  and  tr  at  they 
will  emit  to  do  eveiy  thing  good  which  they  are  authorised  to  do. 
If  this  were  areasonable  supposition,  their  objections  would  be  good, 

T  consider  it  reasonable  to  conclude,  that  they  v. :.!  a-  readi'y  do 
their  duty,  as  deviate  from  it:  nor  do  I  go  on  the  grounds  inentio'  ed 
g*  rule  men  on  the  other  srde-^-tbat  we  are  to  place  urrlirr.ive  d 


MAfcfsojc.] 


VIRGINIA. 


48S> 


confidence  in  them,  and  expect  nothing1  but  the  most  exalted  integri¬ 
ty  and  sublime  virtue.  But  I  go  on  this  great  republican  principle, 
that  the  people  will  have  virtue  and  intelligence  to  seleet  men  of 
virtue  and  wisdom.  Is  there  no  virtue  among  us?  If  there  be  not, 
we  are  in  a  wretched  situation.  No  theoretical  checks — no  form  of 
government  can  render  us  secure.  To  suppose  that  any  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  will  secure  liberty  or  happiness  without  any  virtue  in  the 
people,  is  a  chimerical  idea.  If  there  be  sufficient  virtue  and  intelli¬ 
gence  in  the  community,  it  will  be  exercised  in  the  selection  of 
these  men.  So  that  we  do  not  depend  on  their  virtue,  or  put  confi¬ 
dence  in  our  rulers,  but  in  the  people  who  are  to  choose  them. 

Having  taken  this  general  View  on  the  subject,  I  will  now  advert 
to  what  has  fallen  from  the  honorable  gentleman  who  presides.  His 
criticism  is,  that  the  judiciary  has  not  been  guarded  from  ail  increase 
of  the  salary  of  the  judges.  I  wished  riiyself,  to  insert  a  restraint 
on  the  augmentation,  as  well  as  diminution,  of  their  compensation: 
and  supported  it  in  the  convention.  But  I  was  over  ruled.  Imust 
state  the  reasons  which  were  urged.  They  had  great  weight.  The 
business  must  increase.  If  their  was  no  power  to  inciease  their  pay, 
according  to  the  increase  of  business,  during  the  life  of  the  judges, 
it  might  happen  that  there  would  be  such  an  accumulation  of  busi¬ 
ness;  as  would  reduce  the  pay  to  a  most  trivial  consideration.  This 
reason  does  not  hold  as  to  the  president.  For  in  the  short  period 
which  he  presides,  this  cannot  happen.  His  salary  ought  not,  there¬ 
fore,  to  be  increased.  It  was  objected  yesterday,  that  there  was  no 
provision  for  a  jury  from  the  vicinage.  If  it  could  have  been  done 
with  safety,  it  would  not  have  been  opposed.  It  might  so  happen, 
that  a  trial  would  be  impractible  in  the  country.  Suppose  a  rebel¬ 
lion  in  a  whole  district,  would  it  not  be  impossible  to  get  a  jury? 
The  trial  by  jury  is  held  as  sacred  in  England  as  in  America. — 
There  are  deviations  of  it  inEngland;  yet  greater  deviations  have  hap¬ 
pened  here  since  we  established  our  independence,  than  have  taken 
place  there  for  a  long  time,  though  it  be  left  to  the  legislative  discre¬ 
tion.  It  is  a  misfortune  in  any  case  that  this  trial  should  be  departed 
from,  yet  in  some  cases  it  is  necessary.  It  must  be,  therefore,  left  to 
the  discretion  of  the  legislature  to  modify  it  according  to  circumstan¬ 
ces.  This  is  a  complete  and'  satisfactory  answer. 

It  was  objected,  that  this  jurisdiction  would  extend  to  all  cases; 
and  annihilate  the  state  courts,  At  this  moment  of  time  it  mighthap- 
pen,  that  there  are  many  disputes  between  citizens  of  different  states. 
But  in  the  ordinary  state  of,  things,  I  believe  that  any  gentlemen 
will  think  that  the  far  greater  number  of  causes — ninety-nine  out  of 
an  hundred,  will  remain  with  the  state  judiciaries.  All  controver¬ 
sies  directly  between  citizen  and  citizen,  will  still  remain  with  th» 


490 


DEBATES. 


[HENRY. 


local  courts.  The  number  of  cases  within  the  jurisdiction'  of  these 
courts  are  very  small  when  compared  to  those  in  which  the  local 
tribunals  will  have  cognizance.  No  accurate  calculation  can  be  made 
but  I  think  that  any  gentleman  who  will  contemplate  the  subject  at 
all,  must  be  struck  with  this  truth.  [Here  Mr  Madison  spoke  toa 
low  to  be  understood,] 

As  to  vexatious  appeals,  they  can  be  remedied  by  congress.  It 
would  seldom  happen  that  mere  wantonness  would  produce  such  an 
appeal,  or  induce  a  man  to  sue  unjust!) .  If  the  courts  were  on  a  good 
footing  in  the  states,  what  can  induce  them  to  take  so  much  trou¬ 
ble!  I  have  frequently,  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  been  struck 
with  one  remark.  It  has  been  urged,  that  this  would  be  oppressive 
to  those  who  by  imprudence,  or  otherwise,  under  the  denomination 
of  debtors.  I  know  not  how  this  can  be  conceived.  I  will  venture 
one  observation.  If  this  system  should  have  the  effect  of  establish¬ 
ing  universal  justice,  and  accelerating  it  throughout  America,  it  will 
be  one  of  the  most  fortunate  cir  cumstances  that  could  happen  for  those 
men.  With  respect  to  that  class  ofcitzens,  compassionis  their  due 
To  those,  however,  who  are  involved  in  such  incumbrances,  relief 
eannot  be  granted.  Industry  and  economy  are  the  only  resources. — 
It  is  vain  to  wait  for  money,  or  temporise.  The  great  desiderata  are 
public  and  private  confidence.  No  country  in  the  world  can  do 
without  them.  Let  the  influx  of  money  be  ever  so  great,  if  there  be 
no  confidence,  property  will  sink  in  value,  and  there  will  be  no  in¬ 
ducements  or  emulation  to  industry.  The  circulation  of  confidence 
is  better  than  the  circulation  of  money.  Compare  the  situations  of 
nations  in  Europe,  where  the  justice  is  administered  with  celerity* 
to  that  of  those  where  it  is  refused,  or  administered  tardily.  Con¬ 
fidence  produces  the  best  effects  in  the  former.  The  establishment 
of  confidence  will  raise  the  value  of  property,  and  relieve  those  who 
are  so  unhappy  as  to  be  involved  in  debts.  If  this  be  maturely  con¬ 
sidered,  I  ihink  it  will  be  found  that  as  far  as  it  will  establish  uni¬ 
formity  of  justice,  it  will  be  of  rear  advantage  to  such  persons.  I 
will  not  enter  into  those  considerations  which  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  added.  I  hope  some  other  gentleman  will  undertake  to  an¬ 
swer. 

Mr  HENRY— -Mr  Chairman,  I  have  already  expressed  painful 
sensations  at  the  surrender  of  our  great  rights,  and  I  am  again  driven 
to  the  mournful  recollection.  The  purse  is  gone;  the  sword  is  gone; 
and  here  is  the  oily  thing  of  any  importance  that  is  to  remain  with 
us.  As  I  think  this  is  a  more  fatal  defect  than  any  we  have  yet  con- 
sideied,  forgive  me,  if  I  attempt  to  refute  the  observations  made  by 

he  honorable  member  in  the  chair,  and  last  up.  It  appears  to  me, 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


491 


that  the  powers  in  the  section  before  you,  are  either  impractible,  or 
if  reducible  to  practice,  dangerous  in  the  extreme. 

The  honorable  gentlemen  began  in  a  manner  which  surprised  me; 
It  was  observed,  that  our  state  judges  might  be  contented  to  be  fede¬ 
ral  judges  and  state  judges  also.  If  we  are  to  be  deprived  of  that 
class  of  men,  and  if  they  are  to  combine  against  us  with  the  gener¬ 
al  government  we  are  gone. 

I  consider  the  Virginia  judiciary  as  one  of  the  best  barriers 
against  strides  of  power  ;  against  that  power,  which  we  are  told  by 
the  honorable  gentleman,  has  threatened  the  destruction  of  liberty. 
Pardon  me,  for  expressing  my  extreme  regret.,  that  it  is  in  their 
power  to  take  away  that  barrier.  Gentlemen  will  not  say,  that  any 
danger  can  be  expected  from  the  state  legislatures.  So  small  are 
the  barriers  against  the  encroachments  and  usurpations  of  congress, 
that  when  I  see  this  last  barrier,  the  independency  of  the  judges 
impaired,  I  am  persuaded  I  see  the  prostration  of  all  our  rights.  In 
what  a  situation  will  your  judges  be  in,  when  they  are  sworn  to 
preserve  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  of  the  general  govern¬ 
ment  1  If  there  be  a  concurrent  dispute  between  them,  which  will 
prevail  1  They  cannot  serve  twoi  masters  struggling  for  the  same 
object.  The  laws  of  congress  being  paramount  to  those  of  the  states 
and  to  their  constitutions  also,  whenever  they  come  in  competition, 
the  judges  must  decide  in  favor  of  the  former.  This,  instead  of 
relieving  or  aiding  me,  deprives  me  of  my  only  comfort,  the  indepen¬ 
dency  of  the  judges.  The  judiciary  are  the  sole  protection  against 
a  tyrannical  execution  of  the  laws.  But  if  by  this  system  we  lose 
our  judiciary,  and  they  cannot  help  ns,  we  must  set  down  quietly, 
and  be  oppressed.  , 

The  appellate  jurisdiction  as  to  law  and  fact,  notwithstanding  the 
ingenuity  of  gentlemen,  still  to  me,  carries  those  terrors  which  my 
honorable  friend  described.  This  does  not  include  law  in  the  com¬ 
mon  acceptation  of  it,  but  goes  to  equity  and  admiralty,  leaving 
what  we  commonly  understandby  common  law,  out  altogether. — 
We  are  told  of  technical  terms,  and  that  we  must  put  a  liberal  con¬ 
struction  on  it.  We  must  judge  by  the  common  understanding  of 
common  men.  Do  the  expressions  “  fact  and  law,”  relate  to 

cases  of  admiralty  and  chancery  jurisdiction  only  ?  No,  Sir,  the 
least  attention  will  convince  us,  that  they  extend  to  common  law 
cases.  Three  cases  are  contradistinguished  from  the  rest.  In  all 
cases,  affecting  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls, 
and  those  in  which  a  state  shall  be  a  party,  the  supreme  court  shall 
have  original  jurisdiction.  In  all  the  other  cases  before  mentioned, 
the  supreme  court  shall  have  appellate  juiisdiction,  both  as  to  law 
and  fact.”  Now,  Sir,  what  are  we  to  understand  by  these  words? 


DEBATES. 


Henrt. 


m 

What  are  the  cases  before  mentioned  ?  Cases  of  common  law,  as 
well  as  of  equity  and  admiralty.  I  confess  I  was  surprised  to  hear 
such  an  explanation  from  an  understanding  more  penetrating  and 
acute  than  mine.  We  are  told,  that  the  cognizance  of  law  and  fact, 
is  satisfied  by  cases  of  admiralty  and  chancery.  The  words  are 
expressly  against  it.  Nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  incontestible. 
This  will,  in  its  operation,  destroy  the  trial  by  jury.  The  verdict 
of  an  impartial  jury  will  be  reversed  by  judges  unacquainted  with 
the  circumstances.  But  we  are  told,  that  congress,  are  to  make  re¬ 
gulations  to  remedy  this.  I  may  be  told,  that  I  am  bold,  but  I 
think  myself,  and  I  hope  to  be  able  to  prove  to  others,  that  congress 
cannot,  by  any  act  of  theirs,  alter  this  jurisdiction  as  established. — 
It  appears  to  me,  that  no  law  of  congress  can  alter  or  arrange  it. — 
It  is  subject  to  be  regulated,  but  is  it  subject  to  be  abolished  ?  If 
congress  alter  this  part,  they  will  rppeal  the  constitution.  Does  it 
give  them  power  to  repeal  itself?  What  is  meant  by  such  words 
in  common  parlance  ?  If  you  are  obliged  to  do  certain  business,  you 
are  to  do  it  under  such  modifications  as  were  originally  designed. — 
Can  gentlemen  support  their  argument  by  regular  or  logical  con¬ 
clusions  ?  When  congress  by  virtue  of  this  sweeping  clanse,  will 
organize  these  courts,  they  cannot  depart  from  the  constitution  ;  and 
their  laws  in  opposition  to  the  constitution,  would  be  void.  If  con¬ 
gress,  under  the  specious  pretence  of  pursuing  this  clause,  altered  it, 
and  prohibited  appeals  as  t©  fact,  the  federal  judges,  if  they  spoke 
the  sentiments  of  independent  men,  would' declare  their  prohibition 
nugatory  and  void.  In  every  point  of  view,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it 
will  continue  in  as  full  force  as  it  is  now,  notwithstanding  any  regu¬ 
lations  they  may  attempt  to  make.  What  then,  Mr  Chairman  ? — 
We  are  told,  that  if  this  does  not  satisfy  every  mind,  they  will  yield. 
It  is  not  satisfactory  to  my  mind,  whatever  it  may  be  to  others.  The 
honorable  gentleman  has  told  us,  that  our  representatives  will  mend 
every  defect.  1  do  not  know  how  often  we  have  recurred  to  that 
source,  but  I  can  find  no  consolation  in  it.  Who  are  they  ?  Our¬ 
selves.  What  is  their  duty  ?  To  alter  the  spirit  of  the  constitution 
— to  new  model  it.?  Is  that  their  duty,  or  ours  ?  It  is  our  duty  to 
rest  our  rights  on  a  certain  foundation,  and  not  trust  to  future  con¬ 
tingencies. 

We  are  told  of  certain  difficulties.  I  acknowledge  it  is  difficult  to 
form  a  constitution.  But  I  have  seen  difficulties  conquered,  which 
were  as  unconquerable  as  this.  We  are  told,  that  trial  by  jury  i3 
difficult  to  be  had  in  certain  cases.  Do  we  not  know  the  meaning 
of  the  term  ?  We  are  also  told,  it  is  a  technical  term.  I  see  one 
thing  in  this  constitution;  I  made  the  observation  before,  and  I  am 
still  of  the  same  opinion,  that  every  thing  with  respect  to  privileges, 


495 


HtWRT.]  VIRGINIA. 

i*  so  involved  in  darkness,  it  makes  me  suspiciouSi — not  of  thoRa 
gentlemen  who  formed  it,  but  of  its  operations  in  its  present  form. 
Could  not  precise  terms  have  been  used  I  You  find  by  the  observa¬ 
tions  of  the  gentleman  last  up,  that  when  there  is  a  plenitude  of  po- 
wei,  there  is  no  difficulty  :  but  when  you  come  to  a  plain  thing, 
understood  by  all  America,  there  are  contradictions,  ambiguities, 
difficulties  and  what  not.  Trial  by  jury,  is  attended,  it  seems,  with 
insuperable  difficulties,  and  therefore,  omitted  altogether  in  civil 
cases.  But  an  idea’ is  held  out,  that  it  is  secured  in  criminal  cases. 
I  had  rather  it  had  been  left  out  altogether,  than  have  it  so  vaguely 
and  equivocally  provided  for.  Poor  peopledo  not  understand  tech¬ 
nical  terms.  Their  rights  ought  to  be  secured  in  lanoruaa,e  of  which 
they  know  the  meaning.  As  they  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  such 
terms,  they  may  be  injured  with  impunity.  If  they  dare  oppose  the 
hands  of  tyrannical  power,  you  will  see  what  has  been  practised 
elsewhere.  They  may  be  tried  by  the  most  partial  powers,  by  their 
most  implacable  enemies,  and  be  sentenced  and  put  to  death,  with 
all  the  forms  of  a  fair  trial.  I  would  rather  be  -deft  to  the  judge*. 
An  abandoned  juror  would  not  dread  the  loss  of  character  like  a 
judge.  From  these,  and  a  thousand  other  considerations,  I  would 
rather  the  trial  byvjury  were  struck  out  altogether.  There  is  no 
right  of  challenging  partial  jurors.  There  is  no  common  law  of 
America  (as  has  been  said)  nor  constitution,  but  that  on  your  table. 
If  there  be  neithor  common  law  nor  constitution,  there  can  be  no 
right  to  challenge  partial  jurors.  Yet  the- right  is  as  valuable  as  th* 

*  trial  by  jury  itself. 

My  honorable  friend’s  remarks  were  right,  with  respect  to  incar¬ 
cerating  a  state.  It  would  ease  my  mind,  if  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  would  tell  me  the  manner  in  which  money  should  be  paid, 
if  in  a  suit  between  a  state  and  individuals,  the  state  were  cast. 
The  honorable  gentleman  perhaps  does  not  mean  to  use  coercion, 
but  some  gentle  caution.  I  shall  give  my  voice  for  the  federal  cog¬ 
nizance  only  wThere  it  will  be  for  the  public  liberty  and  safety.  Its 
jurisdictions  in  disputes  between  citizens  of  different  states,  will  bs 
productive  of  the  most  serious  inconveniences.  The  citizens  of 
bordering  states  have  frequent  intercourse  with  one  another.  From 
the  proximity  of  the  states  to  each  other,  a  multiplicity  of  thes* 
suits  will  be  instituted.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  inform  me  of  this — in 
'  what  courts  are  they  to  go,  und  by  what  law  are  they  to  be  tried? 
Is  it  by  a  law  of  Pennsylvania  or  Virginia?  Those  judges  must  b« 
acquainted  with  all  the  laws  of  the  different  states.  I  see  arising 
out  of  that  paper,  a  tribunal,  that  is  to  be  recurred  to  in  all  cases, 
vwhen  the  destruction  of  the  state  judiciaries  shall  happen; -and  from 


494  DEBATES.  [Henry. 

the  extensive  jurisdiction  of  these  paramount  courts,  the  state  courts 
must  soon  be  annihilated. 

It  may  be  remarked,  that  here  is  presented  to  us,  that  which  is 
execrated  in  some  parts  of  the  states.  I  mean  a  retrospective  law. 
This  with  respect  to  property,  is  as  odious  as  an  ex  post  facto\  aw  is 
with  respect  to  persons.  I  look  upon  them  as  one  and  the  same 
thing.  The  jurisdiction  of  controversies  between  citizens,  and 
foreign  subjects  and  citizens,  v/ill  operate  retrospectively.  Every 
thing  with  respect  to  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  and  other  nations 
wall  be  involved  by  it.  Every  man  who  owes  any  thing  to  a  sub¬ 
ject  of  Great  Britain,  or  any  other ‘nation,  is  subject  to  a  tribunal 
that  he  knew  not  when  he  made  the  contract.  Apply  this  to  our 
citizens.  If  ever  a  suit  be  instituted  by  a  British  creditor  for  a  sum 
which  the  defendant  does  not  in  fact  owe,  he  had  better  pay  it  than 
appeal  to  the  federal  supreme  court.  Will  gentlemen  venture  to 
ruin  their  own  citizens'?  Foreigners  may  ruin  every  man  in  this 
state  by  unjust  and  vexatious  suits  and  appeals.  I  need  only  touch 
it,  to  remind  every  gentleman  of  the  danger. 

No  objection  is  made  to  their  cognizance  of  disputes  between 
citizens  of  the  same  state,  claiming  lands  under  grants  of  different 
states. 

As  to  controversies  between  a  state  and  the  citizens  of  another 
state,  his  construction  of  it  is  to  me  perfectly  incomprehensible. 
He  says  it  will  seldom  happen,  that  a  state  has  such  demands  on 
individuals.  There  is.  nothing  to  warrant  such  an  assertion.  But, 
he  says,  that  the  state  may  be  plaintiff  only.  If  gentlemen  pervert 
the  most  clear  expressions,  and  the  usual  meaning  of  the  language 
of  the  people,  there  is  an  end  of  all  argument.  What  says  the 
paper?  That  it  shall  have  cognizance  of  controversies  between  a 
state,  and  citizens  of  another  state,  without  disciminating  between 
plaintiff  and  defendant.  What  says  the  honorable  gentleman?  The 
contrary — that  the  state  can  only  be  plaintiff.  When  the  state  is 
debtor,  there  is  no  reciprocity.  It  seems  to  me  that  gentlemen  maw 
put  what  construction  they  please  on  it!  What! — Is  justice  to  be 
done  to  one  party,  and  not  to  the  other?  If  gentlemen  take  this 
liberty  now,  what  will  they  not  do  when  our  rights  and  liberties  are 
in  their  power?  He  said  it  was  necessary  to  provide  a  tribunal  when 
the  case  happened,  though  it  would  happen  but  seldom.  The  power 
is  necessary,  because  New  York  could  not  before  the  war  collect 
monty  from  Connecticut!  The  state  judiciaries  are  so  degraded  that, 
they  cannot  be  trusted.  This  is  a  dangerous  power,  which  is  thus 
instituted.  For  what?  For  things  which  will  seldom  happen;  and 
yet,  because  there  is  a  possibility  that  the  strong,  energetic  govern¬ 
ment  mav  want  it,  it  shall  be  produced  and  thrown  in  the  general 


Henrx*] 


Virginia. 


495 


scale  of  power.  I  confess  I  think  it  dangerous.  Is  it  not  the  first 
time,  among  civilized  mankind,  that  there  was  a  tribunal  to  try  dis¬ 
putes  betrween  the  aggregate  society,  and  foreign  nations'?  Is  them 
any  precedent  for  a  tribunal  to  try  disputes  between  foreign  nations, 
and  the  states  of  America?  The  honorable  gentleman  said,  that  the 
consent  of  the  parties  was  necessary:  I  say  that  a  previous  consent 
might  leave  it  to  arbitration.  It  is  but  a  kind  of  arbitration  at 
best. 

To  hear  gentlemen  of  such  penetration  make  use  of  such  argu¬ 
ments,  to  persuade  us  to  part  with  that  trial  by  jury,  is  very  asto¬ 
nishing.  We  are  told,  that  we  are  to  part  with  that  trial  by  jury 
which  our  ancestors  secured  their  lives  and  property  with,  and  we 
are  to  build  castles  in  the  air,  and  substitute  visionary  modes  of  de¬ 
cision  to  that  noble  palladium.  I  hope  we  shall  never  be  induced 
by  such  arguments,  to  part-  with  that  excellent  mode  of  trial.  No 
appeal  can  now  be  made  as  to  fact  in  common  law  suits.  The  una** 
nimous  verdict  of  twelve  impartial  men  cannot  be  reversed.  I  shall 
take  the  liberty  of  reading  to  the  committee  the  sentiments  of  the 
learned  judge  Blackstone,  so  often  quoted,  on  the  subject. 

[Here  Mr.  Henry  read  the  eulogium  of  that  writer,  on  this  trial. 
Blackstoneks  Commentaries,  III.  319.] 

The  opinion  of  this  learned  writer  is  more  forcible  and  cogent 
than  any  thing  I  could  say.  Notwithstanding  the  transeendant  ex¬ 
cellency  of  this  trial,  its  essentiality  to  the  preservation  of  liberty, 
and  the  extreme  danger  of  substituting  any  other  mode,  yet  we  are 
now  about  to  alienate  it.  But  on  this  occasion,  as  on  all  others,  wo 
are  admonished  to  rely  on  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  our  rulers.  We 
are  told,  that  the  members  from  Georgia,  and  New  Hampshire,  &c. 
will  not  dare  to  infringe  this  privilege,  that  as  It  would  excite  the 
indignation  of  the  people,  they  would  not  attempt  it.  That  is,  the 
enormity  of  the  offence  is  urged  as  a  security  against  its  commis¬ 
sion.  It  is  so  abominable,  that  congress  will  not  exercise  it.  Shall 
we  listen  to  arguments  like  these,  when  trial  by  jury  is  about  to  be 
■relinquished?  I  beseech  you  to  consider  before  you  decide,  I  ask 
you,  what  is  the  value  of  that  privilege?  When  congress,  in  all  the 
plenitude  of  their  arrogance,  magnificence,  and  power,  can  take  it 
from  you,  will  you  be  satisfied?  Are  we  to  go  so  far  as  to  concede 
•every  thing  to  the  virtue  of  congress?  Throw  yourselves  at  once 
on  their  mercy — be  no  longer  free  than  their  virtue  will  predomi¬ 
nate — if  this  will  satisfy  republican  minds,  there  is  an  end  of  every 
thing.  I  disdain  to  hold  any  thing  of  any  man.  We  ought  to 
•cherish  that  disdain.  America  viewed  withj  indignation  the  idea  of 
holding  her  rights  of  England.  The  parliament  gave  you  the  most 
solemn  assurances,  that  they  would  not  exercise  this  pother.  Were 


496 


DEBATES. 


[Hemtl, 


you  satisfied  with  their  promises?  No.  Did  you  trust  any  man  on 
earth?  No — you  answered,  that  you  disdained  to  hold  your  innate 
indefeasible  rights  of  any  one.  Now  you  are  called  uponvto  give  an 
exorbitant  and  most  alarming  power.  The  genius  of  my  country¬ 
men  is  the  sana e  now  that  it  was  then.  They  have  the  same  feel¬ 
ings.  They  are  equally  martial  and  bold.  Will  not  their  answer 
therefore  be  the  same?  I  hope  that  gentlemen  will,  on  a  , fair  inve*- 
■  ligation,  be  candid,  and  not  on  every  occasion  recur  to  the  virtue  of 
i  our  representatives. 

When  deliberating  on  the  relinquishment  of  the  sword  and  purse, 
we  have  a  right  to  some  other  reason  than  the  possible  virtue  of  our 
^rulers.  We  are  informed,  that  the  strength  and  energy  of  the 
government  call  for  the  surrender  of  this  right.  Are  we  ?to  make 
rour  country  strong  by  giving  up  our  .privileges?  1  tell  you,  that  if 
you  judge  from  reason,  or  the  experienee  of  other  nations, -you  will 
find  that  your  country  will  be  great  and  respectable,  according  as 
you  will  preserve  this  great  privilege.  It  is  prostrated  by  that  pa¬ 
per.  Juries  from  the  vicinage  being  not  secured,  this  right  is  in 
reality  sacrificed.  All  is  gone — and  why?  Because  aiiebellion 
may  arise — Resistance  will  come  from  certain. countries,  and  juries 
•  will  come  from  the  same  countries. 

1  trust  ihe  honorable  gentleman,  on  a  better  recollection,  will  be 
sorry  for  this  observation.  *Why  do  we  love  this  trial  by  jury.* 
Because  it  prevents  the  hand  of  oppression  from  cutting  you  off. 
They  may  call  any  thing  rebellion,  and  deprive  you  of  a  fair  trial  by 
an  impartial  jury  of  their  neighbors.  Has  not  your  mother  country 
magnanimously  preserved  this  noble  privilege  upwards  of  a  thou¬ 
sand  years.2  Did  she  relinquish  a  jury  of  the  vicinage,  because 
there  was  a  possibility  of  resistance  to  oppression  ?  She  has  been 
magnanimous  enough  to  resist  every  attempt  to  take  away  this 
privilege.  She  has  had  magnanimity  enough  to  rebel  when  her 
lights  were  infringed.  That  country  had  juries  of  hundredors  for 
many  generations.  And  shall  Americans  give  up  that  which  no¬ 
thing  could  induce  the  English  people  to  relinquish  ?  The  idea  is 
abhorrent  to  my  mind.  There  was  a  time,  when  we  should  have 
spurned  at  .it.  This  gives  me  comfort,  that  as  long  as  I  have  ex¬ 
istence  my  neighbors  will  protect  me.  Old  as  I  am,  it  is  probable 
I  may  yet  have  the  appellation  of  rebel.  I  trust  that  I  shall  see 
congressional  oppression  crashed  in  embryo.  As  this  government 
stands,  1  despise  and  abhor  it.  Gentlemen  demand  it,  though  it 
takes  away  the  trial  by  jury  in  civil  cases,  and  does  worse  than  take 
it  away  in  criminal  cases.  It  is  gone  unless  you  preserve  it  now. 
1  beg  pardon  for  speaking  so  long.  Many  more  observations  will 
t  present, themselves  to  the  minds  of  gentlemen  when  they  analy$« 


fcNDLET'ON.  j| 


VIRGINIA. 


497 


/ 

'this  part.  We  find  ent/iigh  from  what  has  been  said  to  come  to  this 
'conclusion,  that  it  w^s  not  intended  to  have  jury  trials  at  all.  Be¬ 
cause  difficult  as  it  was,  the  name  was  known,  and  it  might  have 
been  inserted.  Seeing  that  appeals  are  given  in  matters  of  fact  to 
the  supreme  court,  we  are  led  to  believe,  that  you  must  carry  your 
witnesses  an  immense  distance  to  the  seat  of  government,  or  decide 
appeals  according  to  the  Roman  law.  I  shall  add  no  more,  but  that 
I  hope,  that  gentlemen  will  recollect  what  they  are  about  to  do,  and 
consider  that  they  tre  going  to  give  up  this  last  and  best  privilege. 

Mr.  PENDLij  ION. — Mr  Chairman,  before  I  enter  upon  the  ob¬ 
jections  made  to  this  part,  I  will  observe,  that  I  should  suppose  if 
there  were  any  person  in  this  audience  who  had  not  read  this  con- 
■stitution,  or  who  had  not  heard  what  has  been  said,  and  should  have 
been  told  that  the  trial  by  jury  was  intended  to  be  taken  away,  he 
would  be  surprised  to  find  on  examination,  that  there  was  no  ex¬ 
clusion  of  it  in /civil  cases,  and  that  it  was  expressly  provided  for  in 
criminal  ease;!.  I  never  could  see  such  intention,  or  any  tendency 
towards  it.  I  have  not  heard  any  arguments  of  that  kind  used  in 
'favor  of  the  constitution.  If  there  were  any  words  in  it.,  which  said, 
that  trial  by  jury  should  not  be  used,  it  would  be  dangerous,  1  find 
it  secured  in  criminal  cases,  and  that  the  trial  is  to  be  had  in  the 
•3tate  where  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed.  It  is  strongly 
insisted,  that  the  privilege  of  challenging,  or  excepting  to  the  jury 
js  not  secured.  When  the  constitution  says,  that  the  trial  shall  be 
hy  jury,  does  it  not  say,  that  every  incident  will  go  along  with  it? 
I  think  the  honorable  gentleman  was  mistaken  yesterday  in  his  lea- 
sorning  m  the  propriety  of  a  jury  from  the  vicinage. 

He  supposed  that  a  jury  from  the  neighbourhood  is  had  from  this 
-•view — that  they  should  be  acquainted  with  the  personal  character 
of  the  person  accused.  I  thought  it  was  with  another  view,  that 
the  jury  should  have  some  personal  knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  the  witnesses,  who  will  come  from  the  neighbour¬ 
hood.  How  is  it  understood  in  this  state?  Suppose  a  man  who 
live!  in  Winchester,  commits  a  crime  at  Norfolk,  the  jury  to  try  him 
muit  come,  not  from  Winchester,  but  from  the  neighbourhood  of 
Ncrfolk.  Trial  by  the jury  is  seemed  by  this  system  in  criminal  cases, 
•;as*are  all  the  incidental  circumstances  relative  to  it.  The  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  yesterday  made  an  objection  to  that  clause  which 
says,  that  the  judicial  power  shall  be  vested  in  one  supreme  court, 
and  such  inferior  courts,  as  congress  may  ordain  and  establish.  He 
objects  that  there  is  an  unlimited  power  of  appointing  inferior  courts. 
1  refer  to  that  gentleman,  whether  it  would  have  been  proper  to  limit 
this  power.  Could  'those  gentleman  who  framed  that  instrument, 
hare  extended  their  ideas  to  all  the  necessities  of  the  United  States 
tol.  3.  33 


DEBATES. 


|[PEHt>i.rn)fKr  > 


438 

and  see  every  case  in  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  an  infe- 
tior  tribunal?  By  the  regulations  of  congress,  they  may  be  accom¬ 
modated  to  public  convenience  and  utility.  V^e  may  expect  that 
there  will  be  an  inferior  court  in  each  state — Each  state  will  insist 
on  it;  and  each  for  that  reason  will  agree  to  it. 

To  shew  the  impropriety  of  fixing  the  number  of  inferior  courts, 
suppose  our  constitution  had  confined  the  legislature  to  any  particu¬ 
lar  number  of  inferior  jurisdictions  there  it  would  remain,  nor  could 
it  be  increased  or  diminished  as  circumstances  would  render  it  ne¬ 
cessary.  But  as  it  is  the  legislature  can  by  laws  change  it  from  time 
to  time  as  circumstances  will  require.  What  woul  d  have  been  the 
consequences  to  the  western  district,  if  the  legislature  had  been 
restrained  in  this  particular?  The  emigrations  to  that  country  ren¬ 
dered  it  necessary  to  establish  a  jurisdiction  there,  ei$ial  in  rank  to 
the  general  court  in  this  part  of  the  state.  This  was  convenient  to 
dhem,  and  could  be  no  inconvenience  to  us.  At  the  same  time  the 
’legislature  did  not  loose  sight  of  making  every  part  o  ?  the  society 
'Subject  to  the  supreme  tribunal.  An  appeal  was  allowed  to  the 
court  of  appeals  here.  This  was  necessary.  Has  it  pi  educed  any 
inconvenience?  I  have  not  seen  any  appeal  from  that  court.  lu 
organization  has  produced  no  inconvenience  whatever.  1  Iris  proves 
that  it  is  better  to  leave  them  unsettled,  than  fixed  in  the  constitu. 
tion.  With  respect  to  the  subjects  of  its  jurisdiction,  1  consider 
them  as  being  of  a  general,  and  not  local  natuie,  and  therftfore  as 
proper  subjects  of  a  federal  court.  I  shall  not  enter  into  an  exami¬ 
nation  of  each  part,  but  make  some  reply  to  the  observations -of  the- 
honorable  gentleman. 

His  next  objection  was,  to  the  two  first  clauses.  Cases  arising 
under  the  constitution,  and  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof.  Are 
you  to  refer  these  to  the  state  courts?  Must  not  the  judicial  po  wer a 
extend  to  enforce  the  federal  laws,  govern  its  own  officers,  and  con¬ 
iine  them  to  the  line  of  their  duty?  Must  it  not  protect  them  in  the 
proper  exercise  of  duty,  against  all  opposition,  whether  from  in  di- 
'viduals,  or  state  laws?  No,  say  gentlemen,  because  the  legislature 
«nay  make  oppressive  laws,  or  partial  judges  may  give  them  a  pa 
dial  interpretation.  This  is  carrying  suspicion  to  an  extreme,  whic  V 
itends  to  prove  there  should  he  no  legislative  or  judiciary  at  all  - 
‘The  fair  inference  is,  that  oppressive  laws  will  not  be  warranted  by’ 
the  constitution  ;  nor  attempted  by  our  representatives,  who  are 
selected  for  their  ability  and  integrity  ;  and  that  honest  indepen¬ 
dent  judges  will  never  admit  an  oppressive  constiuction. 

But  then  we  are  alarmed  with  the  idea  of  itsffieinfT  a  consolidated 

o 

government.  It  i«  so,  say  gentlemen,  in  the  executive  and  legisla¬ 
tive,  and  must  be  m  in  the  judiciary.  I  never  conceived  it  to  be  \ 


Pendleton.] 


VIRGINIA. 


483 


Of  the  two  objects  of  judicial  cognizance,  one  is  general  and  national 
and  the  other,  local.  The  former  is  given  to  the  general  judiciary, 
and  the  latter  left  for  the  local  tribunals.  They  act  in  co-operation 
to  secure  our  liberty.  For  the  sake  of  economy,  the  appointment  of 
4hese  courts,  might  be  in  the  state  courts.  1  rely  on  an  honest  in¬ 
terpretation  from  independent  judges.  An  honest  man  would  not 
♦serve  otherwise,  because  it  would  be  to  serve  a  dishonest  purpose- 
To  give  execution  to  prbper  laws,  in  a  proper  manner,  is  their  pecu¬ 
liar  province.  There  is  no  inconsistency,  impropriety,  or  danger, 
in  giving  the  state  judges  the  federal  cognizance.  Every  gentle¬ 
man  who  beholds  my  situation,  my  infirmity,  and  various  other 
considerations,  will  hardly  suppose  I  carry  my  view  to  an  accumu¬ 
lation  of  power.  Ever  since  I  had  any  power,  I  was  more  anxious 
to  discharge  my  duty,  than  to  increase  my  power. 

The  impossibility  of  calling  a  sovereign  state  before  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  another  sovereign  state,  shews  the  propriety  and  neressity  of 
vestino-  this  tribunal  with  the  decision  of  controversies  to  which  a 

o 

state  shall  be  a  party. 

But  the  principal  objection  of  that  honorable  gentleman  was,  that 
jurisdiction  was  given  it  i’<  disputes  between  citizens  of  different 
states.  I  think  in  general  those  decisions  might  be  left  to  the  state 
tribunals  ;  e.5pecialhr  as  citizens  of  one  state,  are  declared  to  be 
citizens  of  all.  I  think  it  will  in  general  be  so  left  by  the  regula¬ 
tions  of  congress.  But  may  no  case  happen  in  which  it  may  be 
'proper  to  give  the  federal  courts  jurisdiction  in  such  a  dispute! 
Suppose  a  bond  given  by  a  citizen  of  Rhode  Island  to  one  of  our  citi¬ 
zens.  The  regulations  of  that  state  beingunfavorable  to  the  claims  of 
the  other  states,  if  he  is  obliged  to  go  to  Rhode  Island  to  recover  it,  he 
will  be  obliged  to  accept  payment  ef  one  third,  or  less,  of  hie 
money.  He  cannot  sue  in  the  supreme  court,  but  he  may  sue  in  the 
federal  inferior  court;  and  on  judgment  to  be  paid  one  for  ten,  he 
may  get  justice  by  appeal.  Is  it  an  eligible  situation  ?  Is  it  just 
that  a  mps  should  run  the  risk  of  losing  nine-tenths  of  his  claim  ! 
Ought  he  not  to  be  able  to  carry  it  to  that  court  where  unworthy 
principles  do  not  prevail?  Paper  money  and  tender  laws  may  be 
passed  in  other  states,  in  opposition  to  the  federal  principle,  and 
restriction  of  this  constitution,  and  will  need  jurisdiction  in  th& 
federal  judiciary  to  stop  its  pernicious  effects. 

Where  is  the  danger  in  the  case  put,  bf  malice  producing  an 
assignment  of  a  bond  to  a  citizen  of  a  neighboring  state,  Maryland? 

I  have  before  supposed,  that  there  would  be  an  inferior  federal  court 
i  in  every  state.  Now  this  citizen  of  Maryland,  to  whom  this  bond  is 
lassigned,  cannot  sue  out  of  process  from  the  supreme  federal  court 
to  carry  his  debtor  thither.  He  cannot  carry  him  to  Maryland, 
llemrast  sue  him  iu  the  inferior  federal  court  in  Virginia.  He  can 


DEBATES. 


5 1  o 


[MAaoir., 


consolidated  government,  so  as  to  involve  the  interest  of  all  America- 
only  go  further  by  appeal.  The  creditor  cannot  appeal.  He  gets 
a  judgment.  An  appeal  can  be  had  only  on  application  of  the  de¬ 
fendant,  who  thus  gains  a  privilege  instead  of  an  injury  ;  so  that 
the  observation  of  the  honorable  gentleman  is  not  well  founded. 

Tt  was  said  by  the  honorable  gentleman  to  day,  that  no  regulation 
congress  would  make,  could  prevent  from  applying  to  common  law 
cases,  matters  of  law  and  fact.  In  the  construction  of  general 
word-s  of  this  sort,  they  will  apply  concurrently  to  different  purpo¬ 
ses.  We  give  them  that  distributive  interpretation,  and  liberal 
explication,  which  will  not  make  them  mischievous:  and  if  this  can 
be  done  by  a  court,  surely  it  pan  by  a  legislature.  When  it  appears 
the  interpretation  made  by  legislative  bodies  in  carrying  acts  into 
execution,  is  thus  liberal  and  distributive,  there  is  no  danger  here. 
The  honorable  gentleman  was  mistaken  when  he  supposed  that  I 
said,  in  cases  where  the  competency  of  evidence  is  questioned,  the 
fact  was  to  he  changed  in  the  superior  court.  I  said,  the  fact,  was 
not  all  to  he  affected.  I  described  how  the  superior  court  was  to 
proceed,  and  when  it  settled  that  point,  if  another  trial  was  neces¬ 
sary,  they  sent  the  cause  back,  and  then  it  was  tried  again  in  the 
inferior  court. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  proposed  an  amendment,  which  he 
supposes  would  remove  those  inconveniences.  I  attended  to  it,  and 
it  gave  great  force  to  my  opinion,  that  it  is  better  to  leave  it  to  he 
amended  by  the  regulations  of  congress.  What  is  to  he  done  in 
cases  where  juries  have  been  done  introduced  in  the  admiralty  and 
chancery?  In  the  admiralty,  juries  sometimes  decide  facts.  Some¬ 
times  in  chancery,  when  the  judges  are  dissatisfied  from  the  want 
of  testimony,  or  other  cause,  they  send  it  to  he  tried  by  a  jury. 
When  the  jury  determines,  they  settle  it.  Let  the  gentleman  re¬ 
view  his  amendment.  It  strikes  me  forcibly,  that  it  would  he  better 
to  leave  it  to  congress,  than  to  introduce  amendments  which  would 
not  answer.  I  mentioned  yesterday,  that  from  the  situation  of  the 
states,  appeals  could  not  be  abused.  The  honorable  gentleman  to 
day,  said,  it  was  putting  too  much  confidence  in  our  agents  and 
Tillers.  I  leave  it  to  all  mankind,  whether  it  be  not  a  reasonable 
confidence.  Will  the  representatives  of  any  twelve  states  sacrifice 
their  own  interest,  and  that  of  their  citizens,  to  answer  no  purpose? 
But  suppose  we  should  happen  to  be  deceived,  have  we  no  security? 
So  great,  is  the  spirit  of  America,  that  it  was  found  sufficient  to 
oppose  the  greatest  power  in  the  world.  Will  not  the  America;* 
spirit  protect  us  against  any  danger  from  our  own  representatives? 
It  being  new  late  I  shall  add  no  more. 

Mr  GEORGE  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  the  objection  I 
rssysctjng  tbo  assignment  of  a  bond  from  a  citizen  of  this  stato,  to:* 


VIRGINIA. 


Marshall.] 


501 


citizen  of  another  state,  remains  still  in  force.  The  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  has  said  that  there  can  be  no  danger,  in  the  first  instance, 
because  it  is  not  within  the  original  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme 
court;  but  that  the  suit  must  be  brought  in  the  inferior  federal 
court  in  Virginia.  He  supposes,  there  can  never  be  an  appeal  in 
this  case,  by  the  plaintiff,  because  begets  a  judgment  on  his  bond  ; 
and  that  the  defendant  alone  can  appeal,  who  therefore  instead  of 
being  injured,  obtains  a  privilege.  Permit  me  to  examine  the  force 
cf  this.  By  means  of  a  suit,  on  a  real  or  fictitious  claim,  the 
citizens  of  the  most  distant  states  may  be  brought  to  the  supreme 
federal  court.  Suppose  a  man  has  my  bonAf  °r  £100,  and  a  great 
part  of  it  has  been  paid,  and  in  order  fraudulently  to  oppress  me, 
he  assigns  it  to  a  gentleman  in  Carolina  or  Maryland.  He  then 
carries  me  to  the  inferior  federal  court:  I  produce  my  witness,  and 
judgment  is  given  in  favor  of  the  defendant.  The  plaintiff  appeals 
and  carries  me  to  the  superior  court,  a  thousand  miles,  and  my  ex- 
pences  amount  to  more  than  the  bond. 

The  honorable  gentleman  lecommends  to  me  to  alter  my  proposed 
amendment.  I  would  as  soon,  take  the  advice  of  that  gentleman,  as 
any  other,  and  though  the  regard  which  1  have  for  him  be  great,  I 
cannot  assent  on  this  great  occasion. 

There  are  not  many  instances  of  decisions  by  juries  in  the  admi¬ 
ralty  or  chancery,  because  the  facts  are  generally  proved  by  deposi¬ 
tions,  When  that  is  done,  the  fact  being  ascertained,  goes  upTo  the 
superior  court  as  part  of  the  record:  so  that  there  will  be  no  occa¬ 
sion  to  revise  that  part. 

Mr  JOHN  MARSHALL. — Mr  Chairman,  this  part  of  the  plan 
before  us,  is  a  great  improvement  on  that  system  from  which  we  are 
now  departing.  Here  are  tribunals  appointed  for  the  decision  of  con¬ 
troversies,  which  were  before,  either  not  at  all,  or  improperly  provided 
for,  That  many  benefits  will  result  from  this  to  the  members  of  the 
collective  society,  every  one  confesses.  Unless  its  organization  be 
defective,  and  so  constructed  as  to  injure,  instead  of  accommodating 
the  convenience  of  the  people,  it  merits  our  approbation.  After 
such  a  candid  and  fail  discussion  by  those  gentlemen  who  support 

jt _ after  the  very  able  manner  in  which  they  have  investigated  and 

examined  it,  I  conceived  it  would  be  no  longer  considered  as  so  very 
defective,  and  that  those  who  opposed  it,  would  be  convinced  of  the 
impropriety  of  some  of  their  objections.  But  1  perceive  they  still 
continue  the  same  opposition.  Gentlemen  have  gone  on  an  idea, 
that  the  federal  courts  will  not  determine  the  causes  which  may 
come  before  them,  with  the  same  fairness  and  impartiality,  with 
which  other  courts  decide.  What  are  the  reasons  of  this  supposi¬ 
tion?  Do  they  draw  them  from  the  manner  in  which  the  judges  are 


DEBATES. 


[Marshall,. 


532 

chosen,  or  the  tenure  of  their  office?  What  is  it  that  makes  us  trust 
our  judges?  Their  independence  in  office,  and  manner  of  appoint- 
merit.  Are  not  the  judges  of  the  federal  court  chosen  with  as  much? 
wisdom,  as  the  judges  of  the  state  governments.  Are  they  not  equal¬ 
ly  if  not  more  independent?  If  so,  shall  we  not  conclude  that  they 
will  decide  with  equal  impartiality  and  candor?  If  there  be  as  much 
wisdom  and  knowledge  in  the  United  States,  as  in  a  particular  state*, 
shall  we  conclude  that  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  will  not  be  equal¬ 
ly  exercised  in  the  selection  of  judges? 

The  principle  on  which  they  ohjpct  to  the  federal  jurisdiction, 
seems  to  me  te  be  founded  on  a  belief,  that  there  will  not  he  a  fair 
trial  had  in  those  courts.  If  this  committee  will  consider  it  fullyr 
they  will  find  it  has  no  foundation,  and  that  we  are  as  secure  there 
as  any  where  else.  What  mischief  results  from  some  causes  being 
tried  there?  Is  there  not  the  utmost  reason  to  conclude  that  judges,, 
wisely  appointed,  and  independent  in  their  officp,  will  never  counte- 
nance  any  unfair  trial?  What  are  the  subjects  of  its  jurisdiction?’ 
Let  us  examine  them  with  an  expectation  that  causes  will  be  as  can¬ 
didly  tried  there,  as  elsewhere,  and  then  determine.  The  objec¬ 
tion,  which  was  made  by  the  honorable  member  who  was  first  up 
yesterday  (Mr  Mason)  has  been  so  fully  refuted  that  it  is  not  worth 
white  to  notice  it.  He  objected  to  congress  having  power  to  create 
a  number  of  inferior  courts  according  to  the  necessity  of  public  cir¬ 
cumstances.  I  had  an  apprehension  that  those  gentlemen  who 
placed  no  confidence  in  congress,  would  object  that  there  might  be 
no  inferior  courts.  I  own  that  I  thought,  those  gentlemen  would 
think  there  would  be  no  inferior  courts,  as  it  depended  on  the  will 
of  congress,  hut  that  we  should  be  dragged  to  the  centre  of  the 
union.  But  I  did  not  conceive,  that  the  power  of  increasing  the 
number  of  courts  Could  be  objected  to  by  any  gentleman,  as  it  would 
remove  the  inconvenience  of  beinnr  draernred  to  the  centre  of  United 
States.  I  own  that  the  power  of  creating  a  number  of  courts,  is  in 
my  estimation,  so  far  from  being  a  defect,  that  it  seems  necessary 
to  the  perfection  of  this  system.  After  having  objected  to  the  num¬ 
ber  and  mode,  he  objected  to  the  subject  matter  of  their  cognizance. 
(Here  Mr  Marshall  read  the  second  section.) 

These,  sir,  are  the  points  of  federal  jurisdiction  to  whidh  he  ob¬ 
jects,  with  a  few  exceptions.  Let  us  examine  each  of  them  with  a 
supposition,  that  the  same  impartiality  will  be  observed  there,  as  in 
other  courts,  and  then  see  if  any  mischief  will  result  from  them. 
With  respect  to  its  cognizance  in  all  cases  arising  under  the  consti¬ 
tution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  he  says,  that  the  laws 
of  the  United  States  being  paramount  to  the  laws  of  the  particular 
sitates;  there  is  no  case  but  what  this  will  extend  to.  Has  the 


^Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


50$ 


▼eminent  of  the  United  States  power  to  make  laws  on  every  sub¬ 
ject?  Boos  he  understand  k  sol  Can  they  make  laws  affecting 
the  mode  of  transferring  property,  or  contracts,  or  claims,  between 
citizens  of  the  same  stated  Ofin  they  go  beyond  the  delegated  pow¬ 
ers!  If  they  were  to  make  a  law  not  warranted  by  any  of  the  pow¬ 
ers  enumerated,  it  would  be  considered  by  the  judges  as  an  infringe¬ 
ment  of  the  constitution  which  they  are  to  guard:  they  would  not 
consider  such  a  law  as  coming  under  their  jurisdiction.  They  would 
declare  it  void.  It  will  annihilate  the  state  courts,  says  the  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman.  Does  not  every  gentleman  here  know,  that  the 
causes  in  our  courts  are  more  numerous  than  they  can  decide,  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  present  construction!  Look  at  the  dockets.  Yon 
will  find  them  crowded  with  suits,  which  the  life  of  man  will  not 
see  determined.  If  some  of  these  suits  be  carried  to  other  courts 
will  it  be  wrong!  They  will  still  have  business  enough. 

Then  there  is  no  danger,  that  particular  subjects,  small  in  propor¬ 
tion,  being  taken  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  judiciaiies,  will 
render  them  useless  and  of  no  effect.  Does  the  gentleman  think 
that  the  state  courts  will  have  no  cognizance  of  cases  not  mentioned 
here!  Aro  there  any  words  in  this  constitution  which  excludes  the 
courts  of  the  states  from  those  cases  which  they  now  possess! 
Does  the  gentleman  imagine  this  to  be  the  case?  Will  any  gentle¬ 
man  believe  it?  Are  not  controversies  respecting  lands  claimed  un¬ 
der  the  grants  of  different  states,  the  only  controversies  between 
citizens  of  the  same  state,  which  the  federal  judiciary  can  take  cog¬ 
nisance  of?  The  case  is  so  clear,  that  to  prove  it  would  be  an  use¬ 
less  waste  of  time.  The  state  courts  will  not  loose  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  causes  they  now  decide.  They  have  a  concurrence  of  juris¬ 
diction  with  the  federal  courfs  in  those  cases,  in  which  the  latter 
have  cognizance. 

How  disgraceful  is  it  that  the  state  courts  cannot  be  trusted,  says 
the  honorable  gentleman!  What  is  the  language  of  the  constitution? 
Does  it  take  way  their  jurisdiction!  Is  it  not  necessary  that  the 
federal  -courts  should  have  cognizance  of  cases  arising  under  the 
constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  Uoited  States?  What  is  the  ser¬ 
vice  or  Durpcce  of  a  judiciary,  but  to  execute  the  laws  in  a  peace¬ 
able,  orderly  manner,  without  shedding  blood,  or  creating  a  contest 
or  availing  yourselves  of  force?  If  this  be  the  case,  where  can  its 
jurisdiction  be  more  necessary  than  here? 

To  what  quarter  will  you  look  for  protection  from  an  infringement 
on  the  constitution,  if  you  will  not  give  the  power  the  judiciary? 
There  is  no  other  body  that  can  afford  such  a  protection.  But  the 
honorable  member  objects  to  it,  because,  he  says,  that  the  officers 
af  the  government  will  be  screened  frqui  merited  punishment  by  .thft 


504 


DEBATES. 


[Marshals,  ; 

federal  judiciary.  The  federal  sheriff,  says  he,  will  go  into  a  poor 
man’s  house  and  beat  him,  or  abuse  Us  family,  and  the  federal  court 
will  protect  him;  Does  any  gentleman  believe  this  1  Is  it  neces¬ 
sary  that  the  officers  will  commit  a  trespass  on  the  property  or  per¬ 
sons  of  those  with  whom  they  are  t transact  business  l  Will  such 
great  insults  on  the  people  of  this  country  be  allowable  I  Were  a 
law  made  to  authorize  them,  it  would  be  void.  The  injured  man; 
would  trust  to  a  tribunal  in  his  neighborhood.  To  such  a  tribunal 
he  would  apply  for  redress,  and  get  it.  There  is  no  reason  to  fear 
that  he  would  not  meet  that  justice  there,  which  his  country  will  he 
ever  willing  to  maintain.  But,  on  appeal ,  says  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman,  what  chance  is  there  to  obtain,  justice '?  This  is  founded  on 
an  idea,  that  they  will  not  be  impartial.  There  is  nc  clause  in  the? 
constitution  which  bars  the  individual  member  injured,  from  apply¬ 
ing  to  the  state  courts  to  give  him  redress.  He  says  that  there  is  no* 
instance  of  appeals  as  to  fact  in  common  law  cases.  The  contrary 
is  well  known  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,,  to  be  the  casein  this  common¬ 
wealth.  With  respect  to  mills,  roads,  and  other  cases,  appeals  lie- 
from  the  inferior  to  the  superior  court,  as  to  factas  well  as  law.  Is 
it  a  clear  case,  that  there  can  be  no  case  in  common  law,  in  which 
an  appeal  as  to  fact  might  be  proper  and  necessary  1  Can  you  not 
conceive  a  case  where  it  would  lie  productive  of  advantages  to  the 
people  at  large,  to  submit  to  that  tribunal  the  final  determination*,  in¬ 
volving  facts  as  well  as  law  1  Suppose  it  should  be  deemed  for  the- 
convenience  of  the  citizens,  tnat  those  things  which  concerned 
foreign  ministers,  should  be  tried  in  the  inferior  courts — if  justice- 
would  be  done,  the  decision  would  satisfy  all.  But  if  an  appeal  in 
matters  of  fact  could  not  be  earried-  to  the  superior  court,  then  it 
would  result,  that  such  cases  could  not  be  tried  before  the  inferior 
courts,  for  fear  of  injurious  and  partial  decisions. 

But,  sir,  where  is  the  necessity  of  discriminating  between  the 
three  cases  of  chancery,  admiralty,  and  common  law!  WThy  not 
leave  it  to  congress'?  Will  it  enlarge  their  powers'?  Is  it  necessa¬ 
ry  for  them  wantonly  to  infringe  youi  rights'?  Have  you  any  thing 
lo  apprehend,  when  they  can  in  no  case  abuse  their  power  without 
rendering  themselves  hateful  to  the  people  at  large”?  When  this  is 
the  case,  something  may  be  left  to  the  legislature  freely  chosen  by 
ourselves,  from  among  ourse/ves,  who  are  to  share  the  burdens  im¬ 
posed  upon  the  community,  and  who  can  be  changed  at  our,  pleasure* 
Where  power  may  be  trusted,  and  there  is  no  motive  to  abuse  it,  k 
seems  to  me  to  be  as  well  to  leave  it  undetermined,  as  to  fix  it  in  the 
constitution. 

With  respect  to  disputes  between  a  state ,  and  the  citizens  of  ano¬ 
ther  state}  its  jurisdiction  has  been  decried  with  usual  vehemence* 


VIRGINIA. 


501 


Marshall.] 

(I  hope  that  no  gentleman  will  think  that  a  state  will  be  called  at  the 
ibar  of  the  federal  court.  Is  there  no  such  case  at  present!  Are  there 
not  many  cases  in  which  the  legislature  of  Virginia  is  a  party,  and 
yet  the  state  is  not  sued!  It  is  not  rational  to  suppose,  that  the 
sovereign  power  shall  be  dragged  before  a  court.  The  intent  is,  to 
enable  states  to  recoverclaims  of  individuals  residing  in  other  states 
I  contend  this  construction  is  warranted  by  the  words.  But,  say 
they,  there  will  be  partiality  in  it  if  a  state  cannot  be  defendant — if, 
an  individual  cannot  proceed  to  obtain  judgment  against  a  state, 
though  he  may  be  sued  by  a  state.  It  is  necessary  to  be  so,  and  can¬ 
not  be  avoided.  I  see  a  difficulty  in  making  a  state  defendant,  which 
does  not  prevent  its  being  plaintiff.  If  this  be  only  what  cannot  he 
avoided,  why  object  to  the  system  on  that  account!  If  an  individual 
has  a  just  claim  against  any  particular  state,  is  it  to  be  presumed 
that  on  application  to  its  legislature,  he  will  not  obtain  satisfaction? 
But  how  could  a  state  recover  any  claim  from  a  citizen  of  another 
state,  without  the  establishment  of  these  tribunals! 

The  honorable  member  objects  to  suits  being  instituted  in  the 
federal  courts  by  the  citizens  of  one  state,  against  the  citizens  of  a- 
nother  state.  Were  I  to  contend,  that  this  was  necessary  in  all  cases, 
and  that  the  government  without  it  would  be  defective,  I  should  not 
use  my  own  judgment.  But  are  not  the  objections  to  it  carried  too 
far!  Though  it  may  not  in  general  be  absolutely  necessary,  a  case 
may  happen,  as  has  been  observed,  in  which  a  citizen  of  one  state 
ought  to  be  able  to  recur  to  this  tribunal,  to  recover  a  claim  from 
the  citizen  of  another  state.  What  is  the  evil  which  this  can  pro¬ 
duce!  Will  he  get  more  than  justice  there!  The  independence  of 
the  judges  forbids  it.  What  has  he  to  get?  Justice.  Shall  we  ob¬ 
ject  to  this,  because  the  citizen  of  another  state  can  obtain  justice 
without  applying  to  our  state  courts?  It  may  be  necessary  with  re¬ 
spect  to  the  laws  and  regulations  of  commerce,  which  congress  may 
make.  It  may  be  necessary  in  cases  of  debt,  and  some  other  con¬ 
troversies.  In  claims  for  land  it  is  not  necessary,  but  it  is  not  dan¬ 
gerous.  In  the  court  of  which  state  will  it  be  instituted?  said  the 
honorable  gentleman.  It  will  be  instituted  in  the  court  of  the  state 
where  the  defendant  resides,  where  the  law  can  come  at  him,  and  no 
where  else.  By  the  laws  of  which  state  will  it  be  determined?  said 
he.  By  the  laws  of  the  state  where  the  contract  was  made.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  those  laws,  and  those  only,  can  it  be  decided.  Is  this  a 
novelty?  No,  it  is  a  principle  in  the  jurisprudence  of  thiscommon- 
wealth.  If  a  man  contracted  a  debt  in  the  East-Indies,  and  it  was 
sued  for  here,  the  decision  must  be  consonant  to  the  laws  of  that 
country.  Supposo  a  contract  made  in  Maryland,  where  the  annual 
interest  is  at  six  per  centum,  and  a  suit  instituted  for  in  Virginia — 


506  DEBATES.  [Marshall. 

what  interest  would  be  given  now,  without  any  federal  aid?  The  in¬ 
terest  of  Maiyland  most  certainty;  and  if  the  contract  had  been  made 
in  Virginia,  and  suit  brought  in  Maryland,  the  interest  of  Virginia^ 
must  be  given,  without  doubt..  It  is  now  to  be  governed  by  the  laws 
of  that  state  where  the  contract  was  made.  The  laws  which  govern¬ 
ed  the  contract  at  its  formation  govern  it  in  its  decision.  To  pre¬ 
serve  the  pence  of  the  union  only,  its  jurisdiction  in  this  case  ought 
to  be  recurred  to.  Let  us  consider  that  when  citizens  of  one  state 
carry  on  trade  in  another  state,  much  must  be  due  to  the  one  from 
the  other,  as  is  the  case  between  North  Carolina  and  Virginia. 
Would  not  the  refusal  of  justice  to  our  citizens,  from  the  courts  of 
North  Carolina,  produce  disputes  between  the  states'?  Would  the 
federal  judiciary  swerve  from  their  duty  in  order  to  give  partial  and 
unjust  decisions? 

The  objection  respecting  the  assignment  of  a  bond  to  a  citizen  of 
another  state,  has  been  fully  answered.  But  suppose  it  were  to  be 
tried  as  lie  says,  what  would  be  given  more  than  was  actually  due 
in  the  case  he  mentioned  ?  It  is  possible ,  in  cur  courts  as  they  now 
stand,  to  obtain  a  judgment  for  more  than  justice.  But  the  court  of 
chancery  grants  relief.  Would  it  not  be  so  in  the  federal  court? 
Would  not  depositions  be  laken  to  prove  the  payments,  and  if  proved 
would  not  the  decision  of  the  court  he  accordingly? 

Hft  objects  in  the  next  place  to  its  jurisdiction  in  controversies 
between  a  state  and  a  foreign  state.  Sunpnse,  says  he,  in  such  a 
suit,  a  foreign  sta‘e  is  cast,  will  slip  be  hound  by  the  decision?  If 
a  foreign  state  brought  a  suit  against  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia, 
would  she  not  he  barred  from  the  claim  if  the  federal  judiciary 
thought  it  unjust?  The  previous  consent  of  the  parties  is  necessary. 
And,  as  the  federal  judiciary  will  decide,  each  party  will  acquiesce, 
It  will  be  the  means  of  preventing  disputes  with  foreign  nations. 
On  an  attentive  consideration  of  these  points,  I  trust  every  part  will 
-appear  satisfactory  to  the  committee. 

The  exclusion  of  trial  by  jury  in  this  case,  he  urged  to  prostrate 
our  rights.  Does  the  word  coutt  only  mean  the  judges?  Does  not 
the  determination  of  a  jury  necessarily  lead  to  the  judgment  of  tho 
court?  Is  there  any  thing  here  which  gives  the  judges  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  matters  of  fact?  What  is  the  object  of  a  jury  trial? 
To  inform  the  court  of  the  facts.  When  a  court  has  cognizance  of 
facts,  does  it  not  follow,  that  they  can  make  inquiry  by  a  jury?  It 
is  impossible  to  he  otherwise.  I  hope  that  in  this  country,  where 
impartiality  is  so  much  admired,  the  laws  will  direct  facts  to  bo 
ascertained  by  a  jury.  But,  says  the  honorable  gentleman,  the 
juries  in  the  ten  miles  square  will  be  mere  tools  of  parties,  with 
which  he  would  not  tru3t  his  person  or  property;  which,  he  says, 


Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


50  7 


he  would  rather  leave  to  the  court.  Because  the  government  may 
have  a  district  of  ten  miles  square,  will  no  man  stay  there  but  the 
tools  and  officers  of  the  government!  Will  nobody  else  be  found 
there!  Is  it  so  in  any  other  part  of  the  world,  where  a  government 
has  legislative  power!  Are  there  none  but.  officers  and  tools  of  the 
government  of  Virginia,  in  Richmond!  Will  there  not  be  indepen¬ 
dent  merchants,  and  respectable  gentlemen  of  fortune,  within  the 
ten  miles  square!  Will  there  not  be  worthy  farmers  and  mechanics! 
Will  not  a  good  jury  be  found  there,  as  well  as  any  where  else! 
Will  the  officers  of  the  government  become  improper  to  be  on  a  jury! 
What  is  it  to  the  government,  whether  this  man  or  that  man  succeeds! 
It  is  all  one  thing.  Does  the  constitution  say,  that  juries  shall  con¬ 
sist  of  officers,  or  that  the  supreme  court  shall  be  held  in  the  ten 
miles  square!  It  was  acknowledged  by  the  honorable  member, 
that  it  was  secure  in  England.  What  makes  it  secure  there!  Is  it 
their  constitution!  What  part  of  their  constitution  is  there,  that  the 
parliament  cannot  change!  As  the  preservation  of  this  right  is  in 
the  hands  of  parliament,  and  it  has  ever  been  held  sacred  by  them, 
will  the  government  of  America  be  less  honest  than  that  of  Great 
Britain!  Here  a  restriction  is  to  be"  found.  The  jury  is  not  to  be 
brought  out  of  the  state.  There  is  no  such  restriction  in  that  govern¬ 
ment;  for  the  laws  of  parliament  decide  every  thing  respecting  it. 
Yet  gentlemen  tell  us,  that  there  is  safety  there,  and  nothing  hero 
but  danger.  It  seems  to  me,  that  t  he  laws  of  the  United  States  will 
generally  secure  trials  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage,  or  in  such  manner 
as  will  be  most  safe  and  convenient  for  the  people. 

But  it  seems  that  the  right  of  challenging  the  jurors  is  not  secured 
in  this  constitution.  Is  this  done  by  our  own  constitution,  or  by 
any  provision  of  the  English  government]  Is  it  done  by  their  magna 
charta,  or  bill  of  rights!  This  privilege  is  founded  on  their  laws, 
[f  so,  why  should  it  be  objected  to  the  American  constitution,  that 
it  is  not  inserted  in  it?  If  we  are  secure  in  Virginia,  without  men¬ 
tioning  it  in  our  constitution,  why  should  not  this  security  be  found 
in  the  federal  court! 

The  honorable  gentleman  said  much  about  the  quit-rents  in  the 
Northern  Neck.  I  will  refer  it  to  the  honorable  gentleman  himself. 
Has  he  not  acknowledged,  that  there  was  no  complete  title?  Was 
he  not  satisfied,  that  the  right  of  the  legal  representatives  of  the 
proprietor  did  not  exist  at  the  time  he  mentioned?  If  so,  it  cannot 
exist  now.  I  will  leave  it  to  those  gentlemen  who  come  from  ttiaf' 
quarter.  I  trust  they  will  not  be  intimated  on  this  account,  in  voting 
on  this  question.  A  law  passed  in  1782,  which  secures  this.  Ho 
says  that  many  poor  men  may  be  harassed  and  injured  by  the  repre^ 
seniatives  of  Lord  Fairfax.  If  he  has  no  right,  this  cannot  be  done. 


^08  DEBATES.  [Marshall* 

If  he  has  this  right,  and  comes  to  Virginia,  what  laws  will  his 
claims  be  determined  by?  By  those  of  this  state.  By  what  tribu^ 
nals  will  they  be  determined?  By  our  state  courts.  Would  not  the 
poor  man,  who  was  oppressed  by  an  unjust  prosecution,  be  abun¬ 
dantly  protected  and  satisfied  by  the  temper  of  his  neighbors,  and 
would  he  not  find  ample  justice?  What  reason  has  the  honorable 
member  to  apprehend  partiality  or  injustice?  He  supposes  that  if 
the  judges  be  judges  of  both  the  federal  and  state  courts,  they  will 
incline  in  favor  ot  one  government.  If  such  contests  should  arise, 
who  could  more  properly  decide  them,  than  those  who  are  to  swear 
to  do  justice?  If  we  can  expect  a  fair  decision  any  where,  may  we 
not  expect  justice  to  be  done  by  the  judges  of  both  the  federal  and 
state  governments'1  But,  says  the  honorable  member,  laws  may  be 
executed  tyrannically.  Where  is  the  independency  of  your  judges? 
If  a  Jaw  be  exercised  tyrannically  in  Virginia,  to  what  can  you  trust* 
To  your  judiciary.  What  security  have  you  for  justice?  Their 
independence.  Will  it  not  be  so  in  the  federal  court? 

Gentlemen  ask,  what  is  meant  by  law  cases,  and  if  they  be  not 
distinct  from  facts?  Is  there  no  law  arising  on  cases  of  equity  and 
admiralty?  Look  at  the  acts  of  assembly.  Have  you  not  many 
cases,  where  law  and  fact  are  blended?  Does  not  the  jurisdiction 
in  point  of  law  as  well  as  tact,  find  himself  completely  satisfied  in 
law  and  fact?  The  honorable  gentlemen  says,  that  no  law'  of  con« 
gress  can  make  any  exception  to  the  federal  appellate  jurisdiction  of 
lacts  as  well  as  law.  He  has  frequently  spoken  of  technical  terms, 
and  the  meaning  of  them.  WThat  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  excep¬ 
tion?  Does  it  not  mean  an  alteration  and  diminution?  Confess  is 

© 

empowered  to  make  exceptions  to  the  appellate  jurisdiction,  as  to 
law  and  fact,  of  the  supreme  court.  These  exceptions  certainly  go 
as  far  as  the  legislature  may  think  proper,  for  the  interest  and  liberty 
of  the  people.  Who  can  understand  this  word,  exception,  to  ex¬ 
tend  to  one  case  as  well  as  the  other?  I  am  persuaded,  that  a  re¬ 
consideration  of  this  case  will  convince  the  gentleman  that  he  wras 
mistaken.  This  may  go  to  the  cure  of  the  mischief  apprehended. 
Gentlemen  must  be  satisfied,  that  this  power  will  not  be  so  much 
abused  as  they  have  said. 

The  honorable  member  says,  that  he  derives  no  consolation  from 
the  w’isdom  and  integrity  of  the  legislature,  because  we  call  them 
to  rectify  defects  which  it  is  our  duty  to  remove.  We  ought  well 
to  wreigh  the  good  and  evil  before  we  determine.  We  ought  to  be 
well  convinced,  that  the  evil  will  be  really  produced  before  we  de¬ 
cide  against  it.  If  we  be  convinced  that  the  good  greatly  prepon¬ 
derates,  though  there  be  small  defects  in  it,  shall  we  give  up  that 
which  is  really  good,  when  we  can  remove  the  little  mischief  it 


Marshall.] 


VIRGINIA. 


509 


may  contain,  in  the  plain,  easy  method  pointed  out  in  the  system 
itself? 

I  was  astonished  when  I  have  heard  the  honorable  gentleman  say, 
that  he  wished  the  trial  hy  jury  to  be  struck  out  entirely.  Is  there, 
no  justice  to  be  expected  by  a  jury  of  our  fellow-citizens?  Will  any 
man  prefer  to  be  tried  by  a  court,  when  the  jury  is  to  be  of  his 
countrymen,  and  probably  of  his  vicinage?  We  have  reason  to 
believe  the  regulations  with  respect  to  juries  will  be  such  as  shall 
be  satisfactory.  Because  it  does  not  contain  all,  does  it  not  contain 
nothing?  But  I  conceive  that  this  committee  will  see  there  is 
safety  in  the  case,  and  that  there  is  no  mischief  to  be  apprehended. 

He  states  a  case,  that  a  man  may  be  carried  from  a  federal  to  an 
antifederal  corner,  (and  vice  versa )  where  men  are  ready  to  destroy 
him.  Is  this  probable?  Is  it  presumable  that  they  will  make  a 
law  to  punish  men  who  are  of  different  opinions  in  politics  from 
themselves?  Is  it  presumable,  that  they  will  do  it  in  one  single 
case,  unless  it  be  such  a  case  as  must  satisfy  the  people  at  large? 
The  good  opinion  of  the  people  at  large  must  be  consulted  by  their 
representatives,  otherwise  mischiefs  would  be  produced,  which 
would  shake  the  crovernment  to  its  foundation.  As  it  is  late,  I  shall 

o 


not  mention  all  the  gentleman’s  argument,  but  some  parts  of  it  are 
so  glaring,  that  I  cannot  pass  them  over  in  silence.  He -says  that 
the  establishment  of  these  tribunals,  and  more  particularly  in  their 
jurisdiction  of  controversies  between  citizens  of  these  states,  and 
foreign  citizens  and  subjects,  is  like  a  retrospective  law.  Is  there 
no  difference  between  a  tribunal  which  shall  give  justice  and  effect 
to  an  existing  right,  and  creating  a  right  that  did  not  exist  before? 
The  debt  or  claim  is  created  by  the  individual.  He  has  bound  him¬ 
self  to  comply  with  it.  Does  the  creation  of  a  new  court  amount  ta 
a  retrospective  law? 

We  are  satisfied  with  the  provision  made  in  this  country  on  tho 
subject  of  trial  by  jury.  Does  our  constitution  direct  trials  to  be  by 
jury?  It  is  required  in  our  bill  of  rights,  which  is  not  a  part  of  the 
constitution.  Does  any  security  arise  from  henee?  Have  you  a 
jury  when  a  judgment  is  obtained  on  a  replevin  bond,  or  by  default? 
Have  you  a  jury  when  a  motion  is  made  for  the  commonwealth, 
against  an  individual ;  or  when  a  motion  is  made  by  one  joint  obli¬ 
gor  against  another,  to  recover  sums  paid  as  security?  Our  courts 
decide  in  all  these  cases,  without,  the  intervention  of  a  jury  yet  they 
are  all  civil  cases.  The  hill  of  rights  is  merely  recommendatory. 
Were  it  otherwise,  the  consequence' would  be  that  many  laws 
whioh  are  found  convenient,  would  be  unconstitutional.  What  doe* 
l,he  government  before  you  say?  Does  it  exclude  the  legislature 


510  DEBATES.  [PenBleto*. 

‘from  giving  a  trial  by  jury  in  civil  cases!  If  it  does  not  forbid  its 
exclusion,  it  is  on  the  same  footing  on  which  your  state  govern* 
ment  stands  now.  The  legislature  of  Virginia  does  not  give  a  trial 
by  jury  where  it  is  not  necessary;  but  gives  it  wherever  it  is  thought 
'expedient.  The  federal  legislature  will  do  it  so  too  as  it  is  formed 
on  the  same  principles. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  unjust  claims  will  be  made, 
and  the  defendant  bad  better* 'pay  them  man  go  to  the  supreme  court. 
Can  you  suppose  such  a  disposition  in  cne  of  your  citizens,  as  that 
to  oppress  another,  man  he  wiil  incur  great  expenses'?  What  will 
he  gain  by  an  unjust  demand!  Does  a  claim  establish  a  right!  He 
must  bring  his  witnesses  to  prove  his  claim.  If  he  does  not  bring 
his  witnesses;  the  expenses  must  fall  upon  him.  Will  he  go  on  a 
calculation  that  the  defendant  will  not  defend  it,  or  cannot  produce 
a  witness!  Will  he  incur  a  great  deal  of  expense,  from  a  depend- 
ance  on  such  a  chance?  Those  Who  khoW  human  nature,  black  as 
it  is,  must  know,  that  mankind  are  too  well  attached  to  their  inter¬ 
est  to  run  such  a  risk.  I  conceive,  that  this  power  is  absolutely  no- 
'cessary,  and  not  dangerous;  that  should  it  be  attended  by  little  in¬ 
conveniences,  they  will  be  altered,  and  that  they  can  have  no  inter¬ 
est  in  not  altering  them.  Is  there  any  real  danger!  When  I  com¬ 
pare  it  to  the  exercise  of  the  same  power  in  the  government  of  Vir¬ 
ginia,  I  am  persuaded  there  is  not.  The  federal  government  has  no 
other  motive,  and  has  every  reason  of  doing  right,  which  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  our  state  legislature  have.  Will  a  man  on  the  Eastern  shore 
be  sent  to  be  tried  in  Kentucky,  or  a  man  from  Kentucky  be  brought 
to  the  Eastern  shore,  to  have  his  trial!  A  government  by  doing 
this,  would  destroy  itself.  I  am  convinced,  the  trial  by  jury 
will  be  regulated  in  the  manner  most  advantageous  to  the  com- 
rnunity. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH  declared,  that  the  faults  which  he  once  saw 
iin  this  system,  he  still  perceived.  It  was  his  purpose,  he  said  to 
1  it  form  the  committee,  in  what  his  objections  to  this  part  consisted. 
He  confessed  some  of  the  objections  against  the  judiciary  wer6 
^merely  chimerical,  but  some  of  them  were  real,  which  his  inten¬ 
sion  of  voting  in  favor  of  adoption,  would  not  prevent  him  from 
•developing. 

Saturday  the  21  st  of  June  1788>. 

Mr  HARRISON  reported  from  the  committee  oh  privileges  and 
elections,  that  the  committe  had,  according  to  order,  had  under  their 
farther  consideiation,  the  petition  of  Mr  Richard  Morris,  complain¬ 
ing  of  an  undue  election  and  return  of  William  White,  as  a  delegat* 

serve  in  this  convention  for  the  county  of  Louisa,  and  had  agreed 


Pendlctox.] 


VIRGINIA. 


fill 

tipon  a  report  and  come  to  several  resolutions  thereupon,  resulting 
os  follows — on  motion.  Ordered,  That  the  committee  of  privilege* 
and  elections  be  discharged  from  further  proceeding  ort  the  petition 
of  Ricliard  Morris  and  that  the  petitioner  have  leave  to  withdraw 
the  same. 

The  first  arid  Second  sections  of  the  3d  article  still  under  consid 
ciation. 

Mr  GRAYSON. — Mr  Chairman,  it  seems  to  have  been  a  rule 
with  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  to  argue  from  the  excellency 
Of  human  nature,  in  order  to  induce  us  to  grant  away  (if  I  may  be 
allowed  the  expression)  the  rights  and  liberties  of  our  country.  I 
make  no  doubt  the  same  arguments  were  used  on  a  variety  of  occa¬ 
sions.  I  suppose,  sir,  that  this  argument  was  used  when  Cromwell 
Was  invested  with  power.  The  same  argument  was  used  to  gain 
'our  assent  to  the  stampt  act.  I  have  no  douot  it  has  been  invaria¬ 
bly  the  argument  in  all  countries,  when  the  concession  of  power  has 
been  in  agitation.  Bat  power  ought  to  have  such  checks  and  limi¬ 
tations,  as  to  prevent  bad  men  from  abusing  it.  It  ought  to  b* 
granted  on  a  supposition  that  men  will  be  bad;  for  it  may  be  even¬ 
tually  so.  With  respect  to  the  judiciary,  my  grand  objection  is 
that  it  will  interfere  with  the  state  judiciaries,  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  direct  taxation,  will  interfere  with 
same  power  in  the  state  governments :  there  being  no  superintend¬ 
ing  central  power  to  keep  in  order  these  two  contending  jurisdic¬ 
tions. — This  is  an  objection  which  is  unanswerable  in  its  nature. 

In  England  they  have  great  courts,  which  have  great  and  inter¬ 
fering  powers.  But  the  controling  power  of  parliament,  which  is  a 
•central focus,  corrects  them.  But  here  each  party  is  to  shift  for  itself; 
There  is  no  arbiter,  or  power  to  correct  their  interference.  Recur¬ 
rence  can  be  only  had  to  the  sword.  I  shall  endeavor  to  demon¬ 
strate  the  pernicious  consequences  of  this  interference.  It  was  men¬ 
tioned  as  one  reason,  why  these  great  powers  might  harmonize,  that 
the  judges  of  the  state  courts  might  be  federal  judges.  The  idea 
was  approbated,  in  my  opinion,  with  a  great  deal  ot  justice.  They 
rue  the  best  check  we  have.  They  secure  us  from  encroachments 
on  our  privileges.  They  are  the  principal  defence  of  the  states. 
How  improper  would  it  be  to  deprive  the  state  of  its  only  defensive 
armour?  I  hope  the  states  will  never  part  with  it.  There  is  some¬ 
thing  extremely  disgraceful  in  the  idea.  How  will  it  apply  in  the 
practice?  The  independent  judges  of  Virginia,  are  to  be  subordi¬ 
nate  to  the  federal  judiciary.  Our  judges  in  chancery  are  to 
judges  in  the  inferior  federal  tribunals.  Something  has  been  said 
of  the  independency  of  the  federal  judges.  I  will  only  observe, 
*bat  it  is  on  as  corrupt  a  basis  as  the  art  of  man  can  place  it.  it* 


DEBATES. 


513 


[Grayson. 


mlarles  of  the  judges  may  be  augmented.  Augmentation  of  salary 
i«  the  only  method  that  can  be  taken  to  corrupt  a  judge. 

It  has  been  a  thing  desired  by  the  people  of  England  for  many 
years,  that  the  judges  should  be  independent.  This  independency 
never  was  obtained  till  the  second  or  third  year  of  the  reign  of 
George  the  Illd.  It  was  omitted  at  the  revolution  by  inattention. — 
Their  compensation  is  now  fixed,  and  they  hold  their  offices  during 
good  behavior.  But  I  say,  that  our  federal  judges  are  placed  in  a 
situation  as  liable  to  corruption  as  they  could  possibly  be.  How 
are  judges  to  be  operated  upon?  By  the  hopes  of  reward  and 
not  the  fear  of  a  diminution  of  compensation.  Common  decency 
woujd  prevent  lessening  the  salary  of  a  judge.  Throughout  the 
whole  page  of  history,  you  will  find  the  corruption  of  judges  to  have 
always  arisen  for  that  principle,  the  hope  of  reward.  This  is  left 
open  here.  The  flimsy  argument  brought  by  my  friend,  not  as  his 
own,  but  as  supported  by  others,  will  not  hold.  It  would  be  rather 
hoped,  that  the  judges  should  get  too  much,  than  too  little,  and  that 
they  should  be  perfectly  independent. —What  if  you  give  d^GGO;  or 
dGl,000  annually,  to  a  judge?  It  is  but  a  trifling  object,  when  by 
that  little  money,  you  purchase  the  most  invaluable  blessing  that 
any  country  can  enjoy. 

There  is  to  be  one  supreme  court — for  chancery,  admiralty,  com¬ 
mon  pleas,  and  exchequer,  (which  great  cases  are  left  in  England 
to  four  great  courts)  to  which  are  added,  criminal  jurisdiction,  and 
all  cases  depending  on  the  law  of  nations;  a  most  extensive  jurist 
diction.  This  court  has  more  power  than  any  court  under  heaven. 
One  set  of  judges  ought  not  to  have  this  power — and  judges  partic-. 
ularly  who  have  temptatien  always  before  their  eyes.  The  court 
thus  organized,  are  to  execute  laws  made  by  thirteen  nations,  dis¬ 
similar  in  their  customs,  manners,  laws,  and  interests.  If  we  ad¬ 
vert  to  the  customs  of  theso  different  sovereignties,  we  shall  find 
them  repugnentand  dissimilar.  Yet  they  are  all  forced  to  unite  and 
concur  in  making  these  laws.  They  are  to  form  them  on  one  prin¬ 
ciple,  and  on  one  idea;  whether  the  civil  law,  common  law,  or  law 
of  nations.  The  gentleman  was  driven  the  other  day  to  the  expe¬ 
dient  of  acknowledging  the  necessity  of  having  thirteen  different 
tax  laws.  This  destroys  the  principle,  that  he  who  lays  a  tax, 
should  feel  it  and  bear  his  proportion  of  it.  This  has  not  been  an¬ 
swered:  it  vl  ill  involve  consequences  so  absured,  that  I  presume, 
they  will  not  attempt  to  make  thirteen  different  codes.  They  will 
be  obliged  to  make  one  code.  IIow  will  they  make  one  cond',  with¬ 
out  being  contradictory  to  some  of  the  laws  of  the  different  states? 

It  is  said  there  is  to  be  a  court  of  equity.  There  is  no  such  thing 
in  Pennsylvania,  or  in  some  other  states  in  tie  union.  A  nation  in 


GrAYSON.] 


VIRGINIA. 


513 


making'  a  law,  ought  not  to  make  it  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution,  or  the  genius  of  the  people.  This  rule  cannot  he  ob¬ 
served  in  forming  a  general  code.  I  wish  to  know  how  the  people  of 
Connecticut  would  agree  with  the  lordly  pride  of  your  Virginia  no¬ 
bility.  Its  operation  will  be  as  repugnant  and  contradictory,  in  this 
vase,  as  in  the  establishment  of  a  court  of  equity. — They  may  inflict 
punishments  where  the  state  governments  will  give  Tewards.  This 
Is  not  probable:  but  still  it  is  possible.  It  would  be  a  droll  sight,  to 
see  a  man  on  one  side  of  the  street  punished  for  a  breach  ol  the  fed¬ 
eral  law,  and  on  the  other  side  another  man  rewarded  by  the  state 
legislature,  for  the  same  act.  Or  suppose  it  were  the  same  person, 
that  should  be  thus  rewarded  and  punished  atone  time,  for  the  same 
act,  it  would  be  a  droll  sight  to  see  a  man  laughing  on  one  side  of 
his  face,  and  crying  on  the  other.  I  wish  only  to  put  this  matter 
in  a  clear  point  of  view;  and  I  think  that  if  thirteen  states,  differ¬ 
ent  in  every  thing,  shall  have  to  make  laws  for  the  government  of 
the  whole,  they  cannot  harmonize,  or  suit  the  genius  of  the  people; 
there  being  no  such  thing  as  a  spirit  of  laws,  or  a  pervading  princi¬ 
ple,  applying  to  every  state  individually.  The  only  promise,  in 
this  respect,  is,  that  there  shall  be  a  republican  government  in  each 
state.  But  it  does  not  say  whether  it  is  to  be  aristocratical  or 
democrat!  cal. 


My  next  objection  to  the']  federal  judiciary-  is,  that  it  is  not  ex¬ 
pressed  in  a  definite  manner.  The  jurisdiction  of  all  cases  arising 
'under  the  constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  union,  is  of  stupendous 
magnitude. 

it) 


It  is  impossible  for  human  nature  to  trace  its  extent.  It  is  so 
vaguely  aud  indefinitely  expressed,  that  its  latitude  cannot  be  as¬ 
certained.  Citizens  or  subjects  of  foreign  states  may  sue  citizens 
of  the  different  states  in  the  federal  courts.  It  is  extremely  impol¬ 
itic  to  place  foreigners  in  a  better  situation  than  our  own  citizens. 
This  was  never  the  policy  of  other  nations.  It  was  the  policy  in 
England,  to  put  foreigners  on  a  secure  footing.  The  statute  mer¬ 
chant,  and  statute  staple,  were  favorable  to  them.  But  in  no  coun¬ 
try  are  the  laws  more  favorable  to  foreigners  than  the  citizens.  If 
they  be  equally  so,  it  is  surely  sufficient.  Our  own  state  merchants 
would  be  ruined  by  it,  because  they  cannot  recover  debts  so  soon  in 
the  state  courts  as  foreign  merchants  can  recover  of  them  in  the 
federal  courts.  The  consequence  would  be  inevitable  ruin  to  com¬ 
merce.  It  will  induce  foreigners  to  decline  becoming  citizen®. 
There  is  no  reciprocity  in  it. 

How  will  this  apply  to  British  creditors I  I  have  ever  been  an 
ad-vocate  for  paying  the  British  creditors,  both  in  congress  and  fctse- 

<*•-)  j.'p.i-y  fr>  rwr  own  ciriopus.  It  is  a  maxim  , 


w.: 


rjf.f  I  ••  rn 


514 


DEBATES. 


[Grayson. 


in  law,  that  debts  should  be  on  the  same  original  foundation  they 
were  on,  when  contracted.  I  presume  when  the  contracts  were 
made,  the  creditors  had  an  idea  of  the  state  judiciaries  only.  The 
procrastination  and  delays  of  our  courts  were  probably  in  contem¬ 
plation  by  both  parties.  They  could  have  no  idea  of  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  new  tribunals  to  affect  them.  Trial  by  jury  must  have  been 
in  the  contemplation  of  both  parties,  and  the  venue  was  in  favor  of 
the  defendant.  From  these  premises  it  is  clearly  discernible,  that 
it  would  be  wrong  to  change  the  nature  of  the  contracts.  Whether 
they  will  make  a  law  other  than  the  state  laws,  I  cannot  determine. 

But  we  are  told,  that  it  is  wise,  politic,  and  preventative  of  con¬ 
troversies  with  foreign  nations.  The  treaty  of  peace  with  Great 
Britain  does  not  require  that  creditors  should  be  put  in  abetter  sit¬ 
uation  than  they  were,  but  there  should  be  ho  hindrance  to  the  col¬ 
lection  of  debts.  It  is  therefore  unwise  and  impolitic,  to  give  those 
creditors  such  an  advantage  over  the  debtors.  But  the  citizens  ot 
different  states  are  to  sue  each  other  in  these  courts.  No  reliance 
is  to  be  put  on  the  state  judiciaries.  The  fear  of  unjust  regulations 
and  decisions  in  the  states,  is  urged  as  the  reason  of  this  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  Paper  money  in  Rhode  Island  has  been  instanced  by  gentle¬ 
men.  There  is  one  clause  in  the  constitution  which  prevents  the 
issuing  of  paper  money.  If  this  clause  should  pass,  (and  it  is  un¬ 
animously  wished  by  every  one,  that  it  should  not  be  objected  to) 
I  apprehend  an  execution  in  Rhode  Island  would  be  as  good  anct 
effective  as  in  any  state  in  the  union. 

A  state  may  sue  a  foreign  state,  or  a  foreign  state  may  sue  one  of 
our  states.  This  may  form  a  new  American  law  of  nations.  Whence 
the  idea  could  have  oiiginated,  I  cannot  determine,  unless  from  the 
idea  that  predominated  in  the  time  of  Henry  the  IVth.  and  Queen 
Elizabeth.  They  took  it  into  their  heads  to  consolidate  all  the 
states  in  the  world  into  one  great  political  body.  Many  ridiculous 
projects  were  imagined  to  reduce  that  absurd  idea  into  practice* 
but  they  were  all  given  up  at  last.  My  honorable  friend,  whom  I 
much  respect,  said  that  the  consent  of  the  parties  must  be  previous¬ 
ly  obtained.  I  agree  that  the  consent  of  foreign  nations  must  be 
had  before  they  become  parties:  but  it  is  not  so  with  our  states.  It. 
is  fixed  in  the  constitution  that  they  shall  become  parties.  This  ia 
not  reciprocal.  If  the  congress  cannot  make  a  law  against  the 
constitution,  I  apprehend  they  cannot  make  a  law  to  abridge  iU 
The  judges  are  to  defend  it.  They  can  neither  abridge  nor  extend 
it.  There  is  no  reciprocit}'  in  this,  that  a  foreign  state  should  have 
a  rioht.  to  sue  one  of  our  states,  whereas  a  foreign  state  cannot  b» 
sued  without  its  own  consent.  The  idea  to  me  is  monstrous  and 
extravagant.  It  cannot  be  reduced  to  practice. 


Gravson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


516 


Suppose  one  of  our  states  object  to  the  decision,  arms  must  be 
rcc]  r.  ed  to.  How  can  a  foreign  state  be  compelled  to  submit  to  a  decision ? 
Pennsylvania  and  Connecticut  had  like  once  to  have  fallen  together 
concerning  their  contested  boundaries.  I  was  convinced,  that  the 
mode  provided  in  the  confederation,  for  the  decision  of  such  disputes, 
would  not  answer.  The  success  which  attended  it  with  respect  to 
settling  bounds,  have  proved  to  me  in  some  degree,  that  it  would 
not  answer  in  any  other  case  whatever.  The  same  difficulty  must 
attend  this  mode  in  the  execution.  This  high  court  has  not  a  very 
extensive  original  jurisdiction.  It  is  not  material.  But  its  appellate 
jurisdiction  is  of  immense  magnitude — and  what  has  it  in  view,  un¬ 
less  to  subvert  the  state  governments'?  The  honorable  gentleman 
who  presides,  has  introduced  the  high  court  of  appeals.  I  wish  the 
federal  appellate  court  was  on  the  same  foundation.  If  we  investi¬ 
gate  the  subject,  we  shall  find  this  jurisdiction  perfectly  unnecessary. 
It  is  said,  that  its  object  is  to  prevent  subordinate  tribunals  from 
making  unjust  decisions  to  defraud  creditors.  I  grant  the  suspicion 
is  in  some  degree  just.  But  would  not  an  appeal  to  the  state  courts 
ot  appeal,  or  supreme  tribunals.,  correct  the  decisions  of  inferior 
courts?  Would  not  this  put  every  thing  right.  Then  there  would 
be  no  inference  of  jurisdiction. 

But  a  gentleman  (Mr  Marshall)  says,  we  ought  certainly  to  give 
this  power  to  congress,  because  our  state  courts  have  more  business 
than  they  can  possibly  do.  A  gentleman  was  once  asked  to  give 
up  his  estate  because  he  had  ton  much,  but  he  did  not  comply.  Have 
we  not  established  district  courts,  which  have  for  their  object  the 
full  administration  of  justice?  Our  court  of  chancery  might  by  our 
legislature  be  put  in  a  good  situation,  so  that  there  is  nothing  in 
this  observation.  '  -  , 

But  the  same  honorable  gentleman  says,  that  trial  by  jury  is 
preserved  by  implication.  I  think  this  was  the  idea.  I  beg  leave 
to  consider  that,  as  well  as  other  observations  of  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman.  After  enumerating  the  subjects  of  its  jurisdiction,  end 
*coiifmino-  its  original  ceomizance  to  cases  affecting  ambassadors  and 
other  public  ministers,  and  those  in  which  a  state  shall  be  a  party, 
it  expressly  says,  that  “in  all  other  cases  before  mentioned,  the 
supreme  court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction,  both  as  to  law  and 
fad .”  I  would  be«  the  honorable  gentleman  to  turn  his  attention 

to  the  word  appeal,  which  I  think  comprehends  chancery,  admiralty,, 
common  law,  and  every  thing.  But  this  is  with  such  exceptions* 
and  under  such  regulations,  as  congress  shall  make;  This  we  are 
told  will  be  an  ample  security.  Congress  tiiay  please  to  make 
these  exceptions  and  regulations,  but  they  may  not  also.  I  lay  it 
down  as  a  principle,  that  trial  by  jury  is  given  up  to  the  .discretion 


516 


DEBATES. 


f  Grayscsv 


of  congress.  If  they  take  it  away,  will  it  be  a  breach  of  this  constr- 
tKtion?  I  apprehend  not;  for  as  they  have  an  absolute  appellate- 
jurisdiction  of  facts,  they  may  alter  them  as  they  may  think  proper. 
It  is  possible  that  congress  may  regulate  it  properly  :  but  still  it  is 
at  their  discretion  to  do  it,  or  not.  There  has  been  so  much  said  of 
the  excellency  of  the  trial  by  jury,  that  I  need  not  enlarge  upon  it. 
The  want  of  trial  by  jury  in  the  Roman  republic  obliged  them  to 
establish  the  regulation  of  patron  and  client.  1  think  this  must  be 
the  case  in  every  country  where  this  trial  does  not  exist.  The  poor 
people  were  obliged  to  be  defended  by  their  patron*. 

It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  rule,  that  where  the  governing  power 
possesses  an  unlimited  controul  over  the  venue ,  no  man’s  life  is  in 
safety.  How  is  it  in  this  system?  “The  trial  of  all  crimes  shall 
he  by  jury,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  and  such  trial  shall  be 
held  in  the  state  where  the  said  crimes  shall  have  been  committed.’*' 
He  has  said,  that  when  the  power  of  a  court  is  given,  all  its  ap- 
pendages  and  concomitants  are  given.  Allowing  this  to  be  the  case 
by  implication,  how  is  it?  Does  it  apply  by  counties?  No,  Sir. 
The  idea  is,  that  the  states  are  to  the  general  government,  as  coun¬ 
ties  are  to  our  state  legislatures.  What  sort  of  a  vicinage  is  given 
by  congress?  The  idea  which  I  call  a  true  vicinage  is,  that  a  man 
shall  be  tried  by  his  neighbors.  But  the  idea  here  is,  that  he  may 
be  tried  in  any  part  of  the  state.  Were  the  venue  to  be  established 
according  to  the  federal  districts,  it  would  not  come  up  to  the  true 
idea  of  vicinage.  Delaware  sends  but  one  member  :  it  would  then 
extend  to  that  whole  state.  This  state  sends  ten  members,  and  has* 
ten  districts:  but  this  is  far  from  the  true  idea  of  vicinage.  The  al¬ 
lusion  another  gentleman  has  made  to  this  trial  as  practised  in  En¬ 
gland,  is  improper.  It  does  not  justify  this  regulation.  The  jury 
may  come  from  any  part  of  the  state.  They  possess  an  absolute  un- 
controlable  power  over  the  venue.  The  conclusion  then  is,  that  they 
can  hang  any  one  they  please,  by  having  a  jury  to  suit  their  purpose. 
They  might,  on  particular  extraordinary  occasions,  suspend  th& 
privilege.  The  Romans  did  it  on  creating  a  dictator.  The  British 
government  docs  it,  when  the  habeas  corpus  is  to  be  suspended;  when 
the  solus  populi  is  affected.  I  never  will  consent  to  it  unless  it  ba 


j'fopCity  ti  aimed. 

Another  gen  damn  i  lias  said,  that  trial  by J..ry  not  been  so  sa¬ 

cred  a  thing  am  mg  our  ancestors,  and  that  in  Eugiaud  ii  if. ay  be 
destroyed  by  an  a  cl  of  parliament.  I  believe  the  gentleman  is  mis¬ 
taken.  I  believe  it  is  secured  by  magna  charta,  and  the  bill  uldights. 
)  believe" no  act  of  parliament  can  affect  it,  if  this  principle  be  true, 
that  a  law  is  not  paramount  to  the  constitution.  I  believe  whatever 

IT-  a  »  I) .  ’  i.  !  v .  t  :  O  -  li-  -  -  *  •  v  ,  *  >  *  •  I  ; ,  s .  i  ,  .  0  >  Li  *  1  :  l  - '  *  *  q.  *.  !■  r 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


517 


fixed  constitution,  that  it  is  generally  thought  by  Englishmen,  that 
it  is  so  sacred,  that  no  act  of  parliament  can  affect  it. 

The  interference  of  the  federal  judiciary  and  the  state  courts  will 
Involve  the  most  serious,  and  even  ludicrous  consequences.  Both 
courts  are  to  act  on  the  same  persons  and  things,  and  cannot  possi¬ 
bly  avoid  interference.  As  to  connexion  or  coalition,  it  would  be 
incestuous.  How  could  they  avoid  it,  on  an  execution  from  each 
court,  either  against  the  body  or  effects'?  How  will  it  be  with  re¬ 
spect  to  mortgaged  property!  Suppose  the  same  lands  or  slaves 
mortgaged  to  two  different  persons,  and  the  mortgages  foreclosed, 
one  in  the  federal,  and  another  in  the  state  court — will  there  be  no 
interference  in  this  case!  It  will  be  impossible  to  avoid  inter¬ 
ference  in  a  million  of  cases.  I  would  wish  to  know  how  it  can  be 
avoided;  for  it  is  an  insuperable  objection  in  my  mind.  I  shall  no 
longer  fatigue  the  committee,  but  shall  beg  leave  to  make  some  ob¬ 
servations  another  time. 

t*  Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr  Chairman,  I  shall  state  to  the  com¬ 
mittee  in  what  cases  the  federal  judiciary  appears  to  me  to  deserve 
applause,  and  where  it  merits  dispraise.  It  has  notyet  been  denied, 
that  a  federal  judiciary  is  necessary  to  a  certain  extent.  Every  go¬ 
vernment  necessarily  involves  a  judiciary  as  a  constituent  part.  If 
then  a  federal  judiciary  be  necessary,  what  are  the  characters  of  its 
powers!  That  it  shall  be  an  auxiliary  to  the  federal  government, 
support  and  maintain  harmony  between  the  United  States  and 
foreign  powers,  and  between  different  states,  and  prevent  a  failure  of 
justice  in  cases  to  which  particular  state  courts  are  incompetent. 
If  this  judiciary  be  reviewed  as  relative  to  these  purposes,  I  think  it 
will  be  found,  that  nothing  is  granted,  which  does  not  belong  to  a 
federal  judiciary.  Self  defence  is  its  first  object.  Has  not  the  con¬ 
stitution  said,  that  the  states  shall  not  use  such  and  such  powers, 
and  given  exclusive  powers  to  congress!  If  the  state  judiciaries 
<eould  make  decisions  conformable  to  the  laws  of  their  states,  in  de¬ 
rogation  to  the  general  government,  I  humbly  apprehend  that  the 
federal  government  would  soon  be  encroached  upon.  If  a  particular 
state  should  be  at  liberty  through  its  judiciary,  to  prevent  or  impede 
the  operation  of  the  general  government,  the  latter  must  soon  be  un¬ 
dermined.  It  is  then  necessary,  that  its  jurisdiction  should  “extend 
to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity,  arising  under  this  constitution,  and 
the  laws  of  the  United  States.” 

Its  next  object  is  to  perpetuate  harmony  between  us  and  foreign 
powers.  The  general  government  having  the  superintendency  of  the 
general  safety,  ought  to  be  the  judges,  how  the  United  States  can 
be  most  effectually  secured  and  guarded  against  controversies  with 
foreign  nations.  I  presume,  therefore,  that  treaties  and  cases  affect- 


518 


VIRGINIA. 


[Randolph, 


ing  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls,  and  all  those1 
concerning  foreigners,  will  not  be  considered  as  improper  subjects 
for  a  federal  judiciary.  Harmony  between  the  states  is  no  less  ne- 
cessary  than  harmony  between  foreign  states,  aud  the  United  States. 
Disputes  between  them  ought  therefore  to  be  decided  by  the  federal 
judiciary.  Give  me  leave  to  state  some,  instances  which  have  ac¬ 
tually  happened,  which  prove  to  me,  the  necessity  of  the  power  of 
deciding  controversies  between  two  or  more  states.  The  disputes 
between  Connecticut  and  Pennsylvania,  and  Rhode  Island  and  Con¬ 
necticut,  have  been  mentioned.  I  need  not  particularize  these.  In¬ 
stances  have  happened  in  Virginia.  These  have  been  disputes  re¬ 
specting  boundaries.  Under  the  old  government,  as  well  a3  this, 
reprisals  have  been  made  by  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  on  one 
another.  Reprisals  have  been  made  by  the  very  judiciary  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania  on  the  citizens  of  Virginia.  Their  differences  concerning 
their  boundaries  are  not  yet  perhaps  ultimately  determined.  The 
legislature  of  Virginia,  in  one  instance,  thought  this  power  right. 
In  the  case  of  Mr.  Nathan,  they  thought  the  determination  of  the 
dispute  ought  to  be  cut  of  the  state,  for  fear  of  partiality. 

It  is  with  respect  to  the  rights  of  territory,  that  the  state  judiciaries 
are  not  competent.  If  the  claimants  have  a  right  to  the  territories 
claimed,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  good  government  to  provide  means  to 
put  them  in  possession  of  them.  If  there  be  no  remedy,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  general  government  to  furnish  one. 

Cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction  cannot,  without  pro¬ 
priety,  be  vested  in  particular  state  courts.  As  our  national  tran¬ 
quility  and  reputation,  and  intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  may  be 
affected  by  admiralty  decisions,  as  they  ought,  therefore,  to  be  uni¬ 
form,  and  as  there  can  be  no  uniformity  if  there  be  thirteen  distinct 
independent  jurisdictions,  this  jurisdiction  ought  to  be  in  the  federal 
judiciary.  On  these  principles,  I  conceive  the  subjects  themselves 
are  proper  for  the  federal  judiciary. 

Although  I  do  not  concur  with  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  the 
judiciary  is  so  formidable,  yet  I  candidly  admit  that  there  are 
defects  in  its  construction,  among  which  may  be  objected,  too  great 
an  extension  of  jurisdiction.  I  cannot  say  by  any  means,  that  its 
jurisdiction  is  free  from  fault;  though  I  conceive  the  subjects  to  be 
proper.  It  i3  ambiguous  in  some  parts,  and  unnecessarily  extensive 
in  others.  It  extends  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under 
the  constitution.  What  are  these  cases  of  law  and  equity1?  Do  they 
not  involve  all  rights,  from  an  inchoate  right  to  a  complete  right, 
arising  from  this  constitution1?  Notwithstanding  the  contempt  gen¬ 
tlemen  express  for  technical  terms,  I  wish  such  were  mentioned 
here.  I  would  have  thought  it  more  safe,  if  it  had  been  more  clearly 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


519 


expressed.  What  do  we  mean  by  the  words,  arising  under  the 
constitution ?  What  do  they  relate  to"?  I  conceive  this  to  be  very 
ambiguous?  If  my  interpretation  be  right,  the  word  arising  will  be 
carried  so  far  that  it  will  be  made  use  of  to  aid  and  extend  the  fede¬ 
ral  jurisdiction. 

As  to  controversies  between  the  citizens  of  different  states,  I  am 
sure  the  general  government  will  make  provision  to  prevent  men 
being  harassed  to  the  federal  court.  But  I  do  not  see  any  absolute 
necessity  for  vesting  it  with  jurisdiction  in  these  cases. 

With  respect  to  that  part  which  gives  appellate  jurisdiction ,  both 
as  to  law  and  fact,  I  concur  with  the  honorable  gentleman  who  pre¬ 
sides,  that  it  is  unfortunate,  and  my  lamentation  over  it  would  be 
incessant,  were  there  no  remedy.  lean  see  no  reason  for  giving 
it  jurisdiction  with  respect  to  fact  as  well  as  law;  because  we  find, 
from  our  own  experience,  that  appeals  as  to  fact  are  not  necessary. 
My  objection  would  be  unanswerable,  were  I  not  satisfied  that  it 
contains  its  own  cure,  in  the  following  words:  “With  such  excep¬ 
tions  and  under  such  regulations  as  congress  shall  make.”  It  was 
insisted  on  by  gentlemen,  that  these  words  could  not  extend  to  law 
and  fact,  and  that  they  could  not  separate  the  fact  from  the  law. 
This  construction  is  irrational;  for  if  they  cannot  separate  the  law 
from  the  fact,  and  if  the  exceptions  are  prevented  from  applying  to 
law  and  fact,  these  words  would  have  no  force  at  all.  It  would  be 
proper  to  refer  here  to  any  thing  that  could  be  understood  in  the 
federal  court.  They  may  except  generally  both  as  to  law  and  fact, 
or  they  may  except  as  to  the  law  only,  or  fact  only.  Under  these 
impressions,  I  have  no  difficulty  in  saying,  that  I  consider  it  as  an 
unfortunate  clause.  But  when  I  thus  impeach  it,  the  same  candoor 
which  I  have  hitherto  followed,  calls  upon  me  to  declare,  that  it  is 
not  so  dangerous  as  it  has  been  represented.  Congress  can  regulate 
it  properly,  and  I  have  no  doubt  they  will.  An  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  has  asked,  will  you  put  the  body  of  the  state  in  prison?  How 
is  it  between  independent  states?  If  a  government  refuses  to  do 
justice  to  individuals,  war  is  the  consequence.  Is  this  the  bloody 
alternative  to  which  we  are  referred?  Suppose  justice  was  refused 
to  be  done  by  a  particular  state  to  another,  I  am  not  of  the  same 
opinion  with  the  honorable  gentleman.  I  think,  whatever  the  law 
of  nations  may  say,  that  any  doubt  respecting  the  construction  that 
a  state  may  be  plaintiff,  and  not  defendant,  is  taken  away  by  the 
words,  where  a  state  shall  be  a  party.  But  it  is  objected,  that  this 
is  retrospective  in  its  nature.  If  thoroughly  considered,  this  objec¬ 
tion  will  vanish.  It  is  only  to  render  valid  and  effective  existing 
claims,  and  secure  that  justice  ultimately,  which  is  to  be  found  in 
every  regular  government.  It  is  said  to  be  disgraceful.  What 


520 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph". 


would  be  the  disgrace!  Would  it  not  be,  that  Virginia,  after  eight 
slates  had  adopted  the  government,  none  of  which  opposed  the 
federal  jurisdiction  in  this  case,  rejected  it  on  this  account!  I  was 
surprised,  after  hearing  him  speak  so  strenuously  in  praise  of  the 
trial  by  jury,  that  he  would  rather  give  it  up,  than  have  it  regulated 
as  it  is  in  the  constitution.  Why!  Because  it  is  not  established 
in  civil  cases,  and  in  criminal  cases  the  jury  will  not  come  from  the 
vicinage.  It  is  not  excluded  in  civil  cases,  nor  is  a  jury  from  the 
vicinage  in  criminal  cases  excluded.  This  house  has  resounded 
repeatedly  with  this  observation — that  where  a  term  is  used,  all  its 
concomitants  follow  from  the  same  phrase.  Thus,  as  the  trial  by 
jury  is  established  in  criminal  cases,  the  incidental  right  of  chal¬ 
lenging  and  excepting  is  also  established,  which  secure,  in  the 
utmost  latitude,  the  benefit  of  impartiality  in  the  jurors.  I  beg 
those  gentlemen  who  deny  this  doctrine,  to  inform  me,  what  part  of 
the  bill  of  English  rights,  or  great  charter,  provides  this  right! 
The  great  charter  only  provides,  that  “  no  man  shall  be  deprived  of 
the  free  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  or  property,  unless  declared 
to  be  forfeited  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  the  law  of  the  land.” 
The  bill  of  rights  gives  no  additional  security  on  the  subject  of  trial 
by  jury.  Where  is  the  provision  made  in  England,  that  a  jury  shall 
be  had  in  civil  cases!  This  is  secured  by  no  constitutional  provi¬ 
sion.  It  is  left  to  the  temper  and  genius  of  the  people  to  preserve 
and  protect  it. 

I  beg  leave  to  differ  from  my  honorable  friends  in  answering  this 
objection.  They  said,  that  in  case  of  a  general  rebellion,  the  jury 
is  to  be  drawn  from  some  other  part  of  the  country.  I  know  that 
this  practice  is  sanctified  by  the  usages  in  England.  But  I  always 
thought  that  this  was  one  of  those  instances  to  which  that  nation, 
though  alive  to  liberty,  had  unguardedly  submitted.  I  hope  it  will 
never  be  so  here.  If  the  whole  country  be  in  arms,  the  prosecutor 
for  the  commonwealth  can  get  a  good  jury,  by  challenging  improper 
jurors.  The  right  of  challenging,  also,  is  sufficient  security  for  the 
person  accused.  I  can  see  no  instance  where  this  can  be  abused. 
It  will  answer  every  purpose  of  the  government,  and  individual 
security.  Iu  this  whole  business  we  have  had  argumenta  ad  homi- 
ncm  in  abundance.  A  variety  of  individuals,  and  classes  of  men, 
have  been  solicited  to  opposition.  I  will  pass  by  the  glance  which 
was  darted  at  some  gentlemen  in  this  house,  and  take  no  notice  of 
it;  because  the  lance  shivered  as  against  adamantine .  Gentlemen 
then  intimidate  us  on  the  subject  of  the  lands  settled  to  the  west¬ 
ward,  and  claimed  by  different  claimants,  who,  they  urge,  will 
recover  them  in  the  federal  court.  1  will  observe,  that  as  to  Mr. 
Henderson’s  claim,  if  they  look  at  the  laws,  they  will  see  u  com- 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


521 


pensation  made  for  him:  he  has  acquiesced,  and  has  some  of  the 
lands.  The  Indiana  company  has  been  dissolved.  The  claim  is 
dormant,  and  will  probably  never  be  revived.  I  was  once  well 
acquainted  with  these  matters:  perhaps  I  may  have  forgotten.  I 
was  once  thoroughly  persuaded  of  the  justice  of  their  claims.  I 
advocated  it,  not  only  as  a  lawyer  in  their  behalf,  but  supported  it 
as  my  opinion.  I  will  not  say  how  far  the  acts  of  assembly  past, 
when  they  had  full  power,  may  have  operated  respecting  it.  One 
thing  is  certain,  that  though  they  may  have  the  right,  yet  the 
remedy  will  not  be  sought  against  the  settlers,  but.  the  state  of  Vir¬ 
ginia.  The  court  of  equity  will  direct  a  compensation  to  be  made 
by  the  state,  the  claimants  being  precluded  at  law  from  obtaining 
their  right,  and  the  settlers  having  now  an  indefeasible  title  under 
the  state. 

The  next  is  lord  Fairfax’s  qtiit  rents.  He  died  during  the  war. 
In  the  year  1782,  an  act  passed,  sequestering  all  quit  rents  then 
due,  in  the  hands  of  the  persons  holding  the  lands,  until  the  right  of 
descent  should  be  known  and  the  general  assembly  should  make 
final  provision  therein,  this  act  directed  all  quit  rents  thereafter 
becoming  due,  to  be  paid  into  the  public  treasury.  So  that  with  re¬ 
spect  to  his  descendants.  This  act  confiscated  the  quit  rents.  In  th« 
}7ear  1783,  an  act  passed,  restoring  to  the  legal  representative  of  the 
proprietor,  the  quit  rents  due  to  him  at  the  time  of  his  death.  But 
in  the  year  1785,  another  act  passed,  by  which  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Northern  Neck  are  exonerated  and  discharged  from  paying  com¬ 
position  and  quit  rents  to  the  commonwealth.  This  last  act  has 
completely  confiscated  this  property.  It  is  repugnant  to  no  part 
of  the  treaty,  with  respect  to  the  quit  rents,  confiscated  by  the  act 
of  1782. 

I  ask  the  convention  of  the  free  people  of  Virginia,  if  there  can  ho 
honesty  in  rejecting  the  government,  because  justice  is  to  be  done 
by  it]  I  beg  the  honorable  gentleman  to  lay  the  objection  to  his 
heart — let  him  consider  it  seriously  and  attentively.  Are  wo  to  say 
that  we  shall  discard  this  government,  because  it  would  make  us 
all  honest]  Is  this  to  be  the  language  of  the  select  representatives 
of  the  free  people  of  Virginia] 

An  honorable  gentleman  observed  to  day,  that  there  is  no  instance 
where  foreigners  have  this  advantage  over  the  citizens.  What  is 
the  reason  of  this]  Because  a  Virginian  creditor  may  go  about  for 
a  lamentable  number  of  years  before  he  can  get  justice,  while  fo¬ 
reigners  will  get  justice  immediately.  What  is  the  remedy]  Hon¬ 
esty.  Remove  the  procrastination  of  justice — make  debts  speedily 
payable,  and  the  evil  goes  away.  But  you  complain  of  the  evil  be¬ 
cause  you  will  not  remove  it.  If  a  foreigner  can  recover  his  debtfc 


323 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


in  six  months  why  not  make  a  citizen  do  so1?  There  will  then  be 
reciprocity.  This  term  is  not  understood.  Let  America  be  com¬ 
pared  to  any  nation  with  which  she  ha3  connection,  and  see  the 
difference  with  respect  to  justice.  I  am  sorry  to  make  the  compari¬ 
son  :  but  the  truth  is,  that  in  those  nations  justice  is  obtained  with 
much  more  facility  than  in  America. 

Gentlemen  will  perhaps  ask  me,  why  if  you  knew  the  constitu¬ 
tion  to  be  ambiguous,  will  you  vote  for  it!  I  answer  that  I  see  a 
power,  which  will  be  probably  exercised,  to  remedy  this  defect. 
The  style  of  the  ratification  will  remove  this  mischief.  I  do  not  ask 
for  this  concession — that  human  nature  is  just  and  absolutely  honest. 
But  I  am  fair  when  I  say,  that  the  nature  of  man  is  capable  of  vir¬ 
tue,  where  there  is  even  a  temptation,  and  that  the  defects  in  this 
system  will  be  removed.  The  appellate  jurisdiction  might  be  cor¬ 
rected  as  to  matters  of  [fact,  by  the  exceptions  and  regulations  of 
congress,  but  certainly  will  be  removed  by  the  amendatory  provision 
in  the  instrument  itself.  So  that  we  do  not  depend  on  the  virtue  of 
our  representatives  only,  but  the  sympathy  and  feelings  between  the 
inhabitants  cf  the  states.  On  the  same  grounds  the  sum  on  which 
appeals  will  be  allowed,  may  be  limited  to  a  considerable  amount 
in  order  to  prevent  vexations  and  oppressive  appeals.  The  appel¬ 
late  jurisdiction  as  to  fact,  and  in  trivial  sums,  are  the  two  most 
material  defects.  If  it  be  not  considered  too  early,  as  ratification 
has  not  yet  been  spoken  of,  I  beg  leave  to  speak  of  it.  If  I  did  be¬ 
lieve,  with  the  honorable  gentleman,  that  all  power  not  expressly 
etained  was  given  up  by  the  people,  I  would  detest  this  govern¬ 
ment. 

But  I  never  thought  so,  nor  do  I  now.  If  in  the  ratification  we 
put  words  to  this  purpose,  “  and  that  all  authority  not  given,  is  re¬ 
tained  by  the  people,  and  may  be  resumed  when  perverted  to  their 
oppression  :  and  that  no  right  can  be  cancelled,  abridged,  or  re¬ 
strained,  by  the  congress,  or  any  officer  of  the  United  States,”  I 
say  if  we  do  this,  I  conceive  that,  as  this  style  of  ratification  would 
manifest  the  principles  on  which  Virginia  adopted  it,  we  should  be 
at  liberty  to  consider  as  a  violation  of  the  constitution,  every  exer¬ 
cise  of  a  power  not  expressly  delegated  therein,  I  see  no  objection 
to  this.  It  is  demonstrably  clear  to  me,  that  rights  not  given  are 
retained,  and  that  liberty  of  religion,  and  other  rights  are  secure.  I 
hope  this  committee  will  not  reject  it,  for  faults  which  can  be  cor¬ 
rected,  when  they  see  the  consequent  confusion  that  will  follow. 

Monday ,  the  ZZd  of  June,  1788. 

[The  incomplete  and  inaccurate  state  in  which  the  speeches  of 
this  day  appear,  must  be  ascribed  to  the  absence  of  the  person  who 


Henrx.] 


VIRGINIA, 


523 


took  the  rest  ot  the  speeches  in  short  hand.  As  he  could  not  possi¬ 
bly  attend  on  this  day,  the  printer  hereof  earnestly  desirous  of  con¬ 
veying  as  much  information  as  possible,  to  the  public  on  so  impor¬ 
tant  a  subject,  has  endeavored  by  the  assistance  of  his  notes,  to  give 
as  full  and  impartial  an  account  of  this  day’s  proceedings,  as  was 
practicable,  without  the  aid  of  stenography.] 

[The  1st  and  2d  section,  of  the  3d  article,  still  under  considera¬ 


tion.] 

Mr  NICHOLAS  informed  the  committee  that  he  had  attempted 
on  a  former  occasion,  to  deliver  his  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  tho 
constitution,  ,  he  therefore  did  not  mean  to  trouble  the  committee 


now,*  but  he  hoped  that  gentleman*  were  satisfied  with  the  argu¬ 
ments  that  had  been  urged  by  those  who  were  last  up,  and  that  the 
clerk  would  proceed  to  read  the  next  clause. 


Mr  HLNRY  replied,  that  he  did  not  consider  the  objections  an¬ 
swered  in  such  a  manner  as  gave  satisfaction.  He  hoped  gentle¬ 
men  would  consider  and  remember,  that  if  they  were  not  heard  now, 
they  may  never  be  heard  again  on  the  subject — it  was  an  important 
part  of  the  proposed  plan  of  government,  which  ought,  if  possible  to 
be  fairly  understood — he  hoped  therefore  that  gentlemen  would  not 
be  impatient.  He  proceeded  to  state  the  cases  which  might  arise 
under  the  proposed  plan  of  government,  and  the  probable  interference 
of  the  federal  judiciary  with  that  of  the  Mate  judiciaries — the  dangers 
and  difficulties  which  would  arise  to  the  citizens  from  the  operation 
of  a  federal  revenue  law  which  would  extend  to  the  lands,  tenements 
and  other  property,  coming  under  the  denomination  of  direct  taxes; 
and  when  intrusted  to  a  federal  collector,  might  be  attended  with 
abuses  of  a  dangerous  and  alarming  tendency — the  property  of  tho 
citizens  seized  and  sold  for  one  tenth  part  of  its  value — they  ousted 
from  their  house  and  home,  and  would  have  no  other  resource  for 
redress  but  to  the  federal  government,  which  might  perhaps  be  500 
miles  from  the  place  of  sale.  He  observed,  this  may  be  done  Mr 
Chairman,  for  we  have  instances  to  prove  my  assertion,  even  in 
some  parts  of  our  state,  where  persons  have  been  turned  out  of  house, 
and  home  by  our  collectors,  and  their  property  sold  for  a  mere  trifle, 
— and  if  it  had  not  been  for  an  act  of  the  last  assembly,  this  prac¬ 
tice  would  still  have  continued.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  myself 
particularly  interested  in  this  part  of  the  constitution:  I  per¬ 
ceive  dangers  must  and  will  arise,  and  when  the  laws  of  that 
government  come  to  be  enforced  here,'  I  have  my  fears  for  tho 
consequences.  It  is  not  on  that  paper  before  you  we  have  to  re¬ 
ly,  should  it  be  received;  it  is  on  tho(se  that  may  be  appointed  under 
it.  It  will  be  an  empire  of  men  and  not  of  laws.  Your  rights  and 
liberties  rest  upon  men.  Their  wisdom  and  integrity  may  preserve 


594 


DEBATES. 


[Henry* 


you — but  on  the  contrary,  should  they  prove  ambitious,  and  design¬ 
ing-,  may  they  not  flourish  and  triumph  upon  the  ruins  of  their  coun¬ 
try? 

He  then  proceeded  to  state  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  judi¬ 
cial  power,  both  as  to  law  and  fact,  with  such  exceptions  and  under 
such  regulations  as  congress  shall  make.  He  observed,  that  as  con¬ 
gress  had  a  right  to  organize  the  federal  judiciary,  they  might  or 
might  not  have  recourse  to  a  jury,  as  they  pleased.  He  left  it  to 
the  candor  of  the  honorable  gentleman  to  say,  whether  those  persons 
who  were  at  the  expense  of  taking  witnessess  to  Philadelphia,  or 
wherever  the  federal  judiciary  may  sit,  could  be  certain  whether  they 
were  to  be  heard  before  a  jury  or  not.  An  honorable  gentleman, 
(Mr  Marshall)  the  other  day  observed,  that  he  conceived  the  trial  by 
jury  better  secured  under  the  plan  on  the  table  than  in  the  British 
government,  or  even  in  our  bill  of  rights.  1  have  the  highest  vene¬ 
ration  and  respect  for  the  honorable  gentlemen,  and  I  have  expe¬ 
rienced  his  candor  on  all  occasions;  but  Mr  Chairman,  in  this  in¬ 
stance,  he  is  so  materially  mistaken,  that  I  cannot  but  observe,  he 
is  much  in  error.  I  beg  the  clerk  to  read  that  part  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  which  relates  to  trial  by  jury.— [The  clerk  then  read  the  eighth 
article  of  the  hill  of  rights .] 

Mr  MARSHALL  rose  to  explain  what  he  had  before  said  on  thi@ 
subject:  he  informed  the  committee,  that  the  honorable  gentleman 
(Mr  Henry)  must  have  misunderstood  him.  He  said,  that  he  con¬ 
ceived  the  trial  by  jury  was  as  well  secured,  and  not  better  secured, 
in  the  proposed  new  constitution,  as  in  our  bill  of  rights. — [The  clerk 
then  read  the  eleventh  article  of  the  hill  of  rights.'] 

Mr  HENRY. — Mr  Chairman,  the  gentleman’s  candor,  sir,  as  1 
informed  you  before,  I  have  the  highest  opinion  of,  and  am  happy 
to  find  he  has  so  far  explained  what  he  meant — but,  sir,  has  ho 
mended  the  matter?  Is  not  the  ancient  trial  by  jury  preserved  in  the 
Virginia  hill  of  rights — -and  is  that  the  case  in  the  new  plan?  No, 
sir,  they  can  do  it  if  they  please.  Will  gentleman  tell  me  the  trial 
by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage  where  the  party  resides,  is  preserved? 
True,  sir,  there  is  to  be  a  trial  by  the  jury  in  the  state  where  the 
fact  was  committed— -hut,  sir,  this  state,  for  instance,  is  so  large 
that  your  juries  may  be  collected  500  miles  from  where  the  party  re¬ 
sides — no  neighbors  who  are  acquainted  with  their  characters,  their 
good  or  bad  conduct  in  life,  to  judge  of  the  unfortunate  man  who 
may  be  thus  exposed  to  the  rigor  of  that  government,  Compare 
this  security  then,  sir,  in  our  bill  of  rights  to  that  in  the  new  plan  of 
government,  and  in  the  first  you  have  it — and  in  the  other,  in  my 
opinion,  not  at  all.  But,  sir,  in  what  situation  will  our  citizens  be,, 


HtfttRV.] 


VIRGINIA. 


535 


who  have  made  large  contracts  under  our  present  government?  They 
will  be  called  to  a  federal  court,  and  tried  under  the  retrospective 
laws;  for  it  is  evident,  to  me  at  least,  that  the  federal  court  must 
look  back,  and  give  better  remedies,  to  compel  individuals  to  fulfil 
them.  The  whole  history  of  human  nature  cannot  produce  a  govern¬ 
ment  like  that  before  you:  the  manner  in  which  the  judiciary  and 
other  branches  of  the  government  are  formed,  seem  to  me  calcu¬ 
lated  to  lay  prostrate  the  states,  and  the  liberties  of  the  people:  but, 
tMr,  another  circumstance  ought  totally  to  reject  that  plan,  in  my 
opinion — which  is,  that  it  cannot  be  understood,  in  many  parts  even 
by  the  supporters  of  it.  A  constitution,  Sir,  ought,  to  be,  like  a  bea¬ 
con,  held  up  to  the  public  eye,  so  as  to  be  understood  by  every  man. 
Some  gentleman  have  observed,  that  the  word  jury,  implies  a  jury  of 
the  vicinage.  There  are  so  many  inconsistencies  in  this,  that  for  my 
part,  I  cannot  understand  it.  By  the  bill  of  rights  of  England,  a  sub¬ 
ject  has  a  right  to  a  trial  by  his  peers-— what  is  meant  by  his  peers! 
Those  who  reside  near  him,  his  neighbors- — and  who  are  well  ac¬ 
quainted  with  his  character  and  situation  in  life.  Is  this  secured 
in  the  proposed  plan  before  you.?  No,  Sir,  as  I  have  observed  be¬ 
fore,  what  is  to  become  of  the  purchases  of  the  Indians' ?  Those  un¬ 
happy  nations  who  have  given  up  their  lands  to  private  purchasers — 
who  by  being  made  drunk,  have  given  a  thousand — nay,  I  might 
say  10,000  acres,  for  the  trifling  sum  of  sixpence?  It  is  with  true 
concern,  with  grief  I  tell  you,  that  I  have  waited  with  pain  to  come 
to  this  part  of  the  plan — because  I  observed  gentlemen  admitted  it 
being  defective — and  I  had  tny  hopes,  would  have  proposed  amend¬ 
ments;  but  this  part  they  have  defended — and  this  convinces  me  of 
the  necessity  of  obtaining  amendments  before  it  is  adopted:  They 
have  defended  it  with  ingenuity  and  perseverance,  hut  by  no  mean# 
satisfactory.  If  previous  amendments  are  not  obtained,  the  trial  by 
jury  is  gone.  British  debtors  will  be  ruined  by  being  dragged  to 
the  federal  court — and  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  our  citizens  gone 
—never  again  to  be  recovered. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.— Mr  Chairman,  the  gentlemen,  Sir,  means  to 
frighten  us  by  his  bugbears  of  hobgoblings — his  sale  of  lands  to  pay 

taxes— Indian  purchases,  and  other  horrors,  that  T  think  I  knew  as 
much  about  as  he  does.  1  have  travailed  through  the  greater  pa  it 
of  the  Indian  ec untiles;  I  know  them  well,  Sir. — 1  can  mention  a  va¬ 
riety  oi  resources  by  which  too  people  may  ou  enabled  to  pay  muif 

taxes. 

[He  then  went  into  a  description  of  the  Mississippi  am]  its  waters. 
Cook’s  river,  the  Indian  tribes  resi  fimr  in  that  country,  and  the  va¬ 
riety  of  articles  which  might  be  obtained  to  advantage  by  trading 
witii  !  he.-c  '  ’  -V  '•  ] 


/ 


52G 


DEBATES. 


[Nicholas 


I  know,  Mr  Chairman,  of  several  rich  mines  of  gold  and  silver  in 
the  western  country — and  will  the  gentlemen  tell  me  that  these  pre¬ 
cious  metals  will  not  pay  taxes'?  If  the  gentleman  does  not  like 
this  government,  let  him  go  and  live  am  ong  the  Indians.  I  know  of 
several  nations  that  live  very  happy — an  d  I  can  furnish  him  with  a 
vocabulary  of  their  language. 

Mr  GEORGE  NICHOLAS  observed,  that  he  should  only  mak« 
a  few  observations  on  the  objections  that  had  been  stated  to  ths 
clauses  now  under  consideration — and  not  to  renew  the  answer  al¬ 
ready  given.  The  gentleman  says,  he  would  admit  some  parts  of 
the  constitution — but  that  lie  would  never  agree  to  that  now  before 
us.  I  beg  gentlemen,  when  they  retire  from  these  walls,  that  they 
would  take  the  constitution,  and  strike  out  such  parts  as  the  honora¬ 
ble  gentleman  (Mr  Henry)  has  given  his  approbation  to,  and  they 
will  find  what  a  curious  kind  of  government  he  would  make  it.  It 
appears  to  me,  sir,  that  he  has  objected  to  the  whole — and  that  no 
part,  i f he  had  his  way,  would  be  agreed  to. 

It  has  been  observed,  sir,  that  the  judges  appointed  under  the 
British  constitution,  are  more  independent  than  those  to  be  appoin¬ 
ted  under  the  plan  on  the  table.  This,  sir,  like  other  assertions  of 
honorable  gentlemen,  is  equally  groundless.  May  there  not  be  a 
variety  of  pensions  granted  to  the  judges  in  England,  so  as  to  influ¬ 
ence  them? — and  cannot  they  be  removed  by  a  vote  of  both  houses 
of  parliament?  This  is  not  the  ease  with  our  federal  judges — they 
are  to  be  appointed  during  good  behaviour,  and  cannot  be  removed, 
and  at  stated  times  are  to  receive  a  compensation  for  their  services. 
We  are  told,  sir,  of  fraudulent  assignments  of  bonds — do  gentle¬ 
men  suppose,  that  the  federal  judges  will  not  see  into  such  conduct, 
and  prevent  it?  Western  claims  are  to  be  revived  too — new  suits 
commenced  in  the  federal  courts  for  disputes  already  determined  in 
this  state.  This,  sir,  cannot  be,  for  they  are  already  determined 
under  the  laws  of  this  state,  and  therefore  are  conclusive. 

But,  sir,  we  are  told  that  two  executions  are  to  issue — one  from  the 
ledcral  court  and  the  oilier  from  the  state  court.  Do  not  gentlemen 
know,  sir,  that  the  first  execution  is  good  and  must  be  satisfied,  and 
that  the  debtor,  cannot  be  arrested  under  the  second  execution?  Quit 
rents  too,sir,aie  to  be  sued  for.  To  satisfy  gentlemen,  sir,  I  beg  leave 
to  refer  them  to  an  act  of  Assembly  passed  in  the  year  1782,  before  the 
peace,  which  absolutely  abolished  the  quit  rents,  and  discharges  the 
holders  of  lands  in  the  Northern  Neck  from  any  claim  of  that  kind. 
[He  then  read  the  act  alluded  to.]  As  to  the  claims  of  certain  compa¬ 
nies  who  purchased  lands  of  the  Indians,  they  were  determined  prior 
th«  opening  of  the  land-office  by  the  Virginia  assembly — and  it  is 
not  to  bo  supposed  they  will  again  renew  their  claims.  But,  sir, 


Nicholas.]  VIRGINIA.  52T 

there  are  gentlemen  who  have  come  by  large  possessions,  that  it  is 
not  easy  to  account  for. 

[Here  Mr  HENRY  interfered,  and  hoped  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  meant  nothing  personal.] 

Mr  NICHOLAS  observed,  I  mean  what  I  say,  sir.  But  we  are 
told  of  the  blue  laws  of  Massachusetts — are  these  to  be  brought  in 
debate  here1?  Sir,  when  the  gentleman  mentioned  them  the  day  be¬ 
fore  yesterday  I  did  not  well  understand  what  he  meant;  but  from 
inquiry  I  find,  sir,  they  were  laws  made  for  the  purpose  of  preserving 
the  morals  of  the  people,  and  took  the  name  of  blue  laws  from  being 
written  on  blue  paper:  but  how  does  this  apply  to  the  subject  before 
you!  Is  this  to  be  compared  to  the  plan  now  on  the  table!  Sir, 
this  puts  me  in  mind  of  an  observation  I  have  heard  out  of  doors — »■ 
which  was,  that  because  the  New  Englandmen  wore  black  stock¬ 
ings  and  plush  breeches,  there  can  be  no  union  with  them.  We 
have  heard  a  great  deal  of  the  trial  by  jury — a  design  to  destroy  the 
state  judiciaries,  and  the  destruction  of  the  state  governments.  This, 
sir,  has  already  been  travelled  over,  and  I  think  sufficiently  explain¬ 
ed,  to  render  it  unnecessary  for  me  to  trouble  this  committee  again- 
on  the  subject. 

Mr  HENRY. — Mr  Chairman,  if  the  gentleman  means  persona? 
insinuations — or  to  wound  my  private  reputation — I  think  this  an  im¬ 
proper  place  to  do  so.  If  on  the  other  hand,  he  means  to  go  on  in 
the  discussion  of  the  subject,  he  ought  not  to  apply  arguments  which 
might  tend  to  obstruct  the  discussion.  As  to  land  matters,  I  -  can 
tell  how  I  came  by  what  I  have — but  I  think  that  gentleman  (Mr 
Nicholas)  has  no  right  to  make  that  enquiry  of  me.  I  meant  not  to 
offend  any  one — I  have  not  the  most  distant  idea  of  injuring  any  gen¬ 
tleman — my  object  was  to  obtain  information.  If  I  have  offended  in 
private  life,  or  wounded  the  feelings  of  any  man,  I  did  not  intend  it: 
I  hold  what  I  hold  in  right,  and  in  a  just  manner.  I  beg  pardon, 
sir,  for  having  intruded  thus  far. 

Mr  NICHOLAS.— Mr  Chairman,  I  meant  no  personality  in  what 
I  said,  nor  did  I  mean  any  resentment.  If  such  conduct  meets  tho 
contempt  of  that  gentleman,  I  can  only  assure  him,  it  meets  with  uu 

equal  degree  of  contempt  from  me. 

Mr  President  observed,  that  he  hoped  gentlemen  would  not  b* 
personal,  that  they  would  proceed  to  investigate  the  subject  calmly, 
and  in  a  peaceable  manner. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  replied,  that  he  did  not  mean  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman  (Mr  Henry;)  but  he  meant  those  who  had  taken  up  large 
tracts  of  land  in  the  western  country.  The  reason  he  would  not  ex¬ 
plain  himself  before  was,  that  he  thought  some  observations  dropped 
from  the  honorable  gentleman,  which  ought  not  to  have  come  from 
one  gentleman  to  another. 


328 


DEBATES. 


[Henry# 


Mr  MONROE. — Mr  Chairman,  I  am  satisfied  of  the  propriety  of 
closing  this  subject,  sir,  but  1  must  beg  leave  to  trouble  the  com* 
mittce  a  little  farther.  We  find,  sir,  that  two  different  governments 
aro  to  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  in  the  same  object.  May  not 
thi3  bring  on  a  conflict  in  the  judiciary'?  And  if  it  does,  will  it  not 
end  in  the  ruin  of  one  or  the  other?  There  will  be  two  distinct  ju¬ 
diciaries— one  acting  under  the  federal  authority,  the  other  the  state 
authority.  May  it  not  also  tend  to  oppress  the  people  by  having 
suits  going  on  against  them  in  both  courts  for  the  same  debt? 

Mr  MADISON  answered  Mr  Monroe,  by  observing,  that  the 
county  courts  were  perfectly  independent  of  each  other,  where  the 
same  inconvenience  might  arise:  the  states  are  also  independent  cf 
each  other.  We  well  know,  sir,  that  foreigners  cannot  get  justice 
done  them  in  these  courts,  and  this  has  prevented  many  wealthy 
gentlemen  from  trading  or  residing  among  us.  There  are  also  many 
public  debtors  who  have  escaped  from  justice,  for  want  of  such  a 
method  as  is  pointed  out  in  the  plan  on  the  table.  To  prevent  any 
interference  of  the  federal  and  state  judiciaries,  the  judges  of  the 
states  may  be  deprived  of  holding  any  office  in  the  general  govern¬ 
ment. 


Mr  GRAYSON  observed,  that  the  federal  and  state  judiciaries, 
could  not  on  the  present  plan  be  kept  in  perfect  harmony.  As  to 
lbe  trial  by  jury  being  safer  here  than  in  England,  that  I  deny. 
Jury  trials  are  secured  there,  sir,  by  Magna  Charta,  in  a  clear  and 
decided  manner:  and  that  here,  it  is  not  in  express  and  positive 
terms,  is  admitted  by  most  gentlemen  who  now  hear  me.  He  con¬ 
cluded  with  saying,  that  he  did  not  believe  there  existed  a  social 
compact  upon  the  face  of  the  earth,  so  vague,  and  so  indefinite,  as 
the  one  now  on  the  table.  1 


Mr  HENRY  went  into  an  explanation  of  the  trial  by  jury,  and 
the  difference  between  the  new  plan  and  our  bill  of  rights,  and  ob¬ 
served,  that  the  latter  had  been  violated  by  several  acts  of  assembly, 
which  could  only  be  justified  by  necessity.  lie  begged  gentlemen 
to  consider  how  necessary  it  was  to  have  that  invaluable  blessing 
secured:  those  feeble  implications,  relative  to  juries  in  the  new  plan, 
might  create  the  unhappy  tendency  of  factions  in  a  republican  go¬ 
vernment,  which  nothing  but  a  monarchy  could  suppress.  As  to 
people  escaping  with  public  money  the  gentleman  must  know  that 
bond  and  security  is-  always  taken  on  occasions  where  men  are  en¬ 
trusted  with  collection  of  it.,  and  these  can  follow  them,  and  be  sued 
and  recovered  iu  another  statp,  or  wherever  they  may  escape  to. 

Mr.  MADISON  here  observed,  that  the  declaration  on  that  paper 
could  not  diminish  the  security  or  the  people,  unless  a  majority  of 


VIRGINIA. 


539 


Kasck-.] 

GEORGE  MASON.*— Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  not  have 
troubled  t he  committee  again  on  this  subject,  were  there  not  some 
arguments  in  support  of  that  plan,  Sir,  that  appear  to  me  totally 
unsatisfactory.  With  respect  to  concurrent  jurisdiction,  Sir,  the 
honorable  gentleman  has  observed,  that  county  courts  had  exercised 
this  right  without  complaint.  Have  Hanover  and  Henrico  the  same 
objects?  Can  an  officer  in  either  of  those  counties  serve  a  process 
in  the  other?  The  federal  judiciary  has  concurrent  jurisdiction 
throughout  the  states,  and  therefore  must  interfere  with  the  state 
judiciaries.  Congress  can  pass  a  law  constituting  the  powers  of 
the  federal  judiciary  throughout  the  states:  they  may  also  pass  a 
law  vesting  the  federal  power  in  the  state  judiciaries.  These  laws 
are  permanent ,  and  cannot  be  controverted  by  any  law’  of  the  state. 

If  we  were  forming  a  general  government,  and  not  states,  I  think 
we  would  perfectly  comply  with  the  genius  of  the  paper  before  you; 
but  if  we  mean  to  form  one  great  national  government  for  thirteen 
states,  the  arguments  which  I  have  heard  hitherto  in  support  of  this 
part  of  the  plan  do  not  apply  at  all.  We  are  willing  to  give  up  ail 
powers  which  are  necessary  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  union,  so 
far  as  respects  foreign  nations,  or  our  own  preservation;  but  we  will 
not  agree  to  a  federal  judiciary,  which  is  not  necessary  for  this  pur¬ 
pose,  because  the  powers  there  granted  will  tend  to  oppress  the 
middling  and  lower  class  of  people.  A  poor  man  seized  by  the 
federal  officers  and  carried  to  the  federal  court,  has  he  any  chance 
under  speh  a  system  as  this?  Justice  itself  may  be  bought  too  dear; 
yet  this  may  be  the  case.  It  may  cost  a  man  ^0500  to  recover  d6l00. 
These  circumstances  are  too  sacred  to  leave  undefined,  and  I  wish 
to  sec  things  certain,  positive  and  clear,  But,  however,  Sir,  these 
matters  have  been  so  fully  investigated,  that  I  beg  pardon  for  having 
intruded  so  far,  and  I  hope  we  shall  go  on  in  the  business. 

The  first  section  of  the  fourth  article  was  then  read. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON.— Mr.  Chairman,  the  latter  part  of  this 
clause,  Sir,  1  confess  1  do  not  understand:  Full  faith  and  credit 
shall  he  given  to  all  ads,-  and  how  far  it  may  be  proper  that  congress 
shall  declare  the  effects,  I  cannot  clearly  see  into. 

Mr.  MADISON.— Mr.  Chairman,  it  appears  to  me,  that  thi«  is  a 
clause  which  is  absolutely  necessary.  I  never  heard  any  objection 
to  this  clause  before,  and  have  not  employed  a  thought  on  the  sub¬ 
ject. 

The  second  section  was  then  read. 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON.— Mr.  Chairman,  on  some  former  part 
of  the  investigation  of  this  subject,  gentlemen  were  pleased  to  mnko 
10316  observations  on  the  security  of  property  coming  -viihin  this 
voi..  3.  34 


DEBATES. 


530 


[Lee. 


section.  It  was  then  said,  and  1  now  say,  that  there  is  no  securityr 
nor  have  gentlemen  convinced  me  of  this. 

The  third  section  was  then  read. 

Mr.  GRAYSON. — Mr.  Chairman,  it  appears  to  me,  Sir,  under 
this  section,  there  never  can  be  a  southern  state  admitted  into  the 
union.  There  are  seven  states,  who  are  a  majority,  and  whose 
interest  it  is  to  prevent  it:  the  balance  being  actually  in  their  pos¬ 
session,  they  will  have  the  regulation  of  commerce,  and  the  federal 
ten  miles  square,  wherever  they  please.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
then,  that  they  ivill  admit  any  southern  state  into  the  union,  so  as 
to  lose  that  majority. 

Mr.  MADISON  replied,  that  he  thought  this  part  of  the  plan 
more  favourable  to  the  southern  states  than  the  present  confederation, 
as  there  was  a  greater  chance  of  new  states  being  admitted. 

o  n 

Mr.  GEORGE  MASON  took  a  retrospective  view  of  several 
parts  which  had  been  before  objected  to.  He  endeavored  to  demon¬ 
strate  the  dangers  that  must  inevitably  arise  from  the  insecurity  of 
our  rights  and  privileges;  as  they  depended  on  vague,  indefinite, 
and  ambiguous  implications.  The  adoption  of  a  system  so  replete 
with  defects,  he  apprehended,  could  not  but  be  productive  of  the 
most  alarming  consequences.  He  dreaded  popular  resistance  to  its 
operation.  He  expressed,  in  emphatic  terms,  the  dreadful  effects 
which  must  ensue,  should  the  people  resist;  and  concluded  by  ob¬ 
serving,  that  he  trusted  gentlemen  would  pause  before  they  would 
decide  a  question  which  involved  such  awful  consequences. 

Mr.  LEE,  of  Westmoreland. — Mr.  Chairman,  my  feelings  are  so 
oppressed  with  the  declarations  of  my  honorable  friend,  that  I  can 
no  longer  suppress  my  utterance.  I  respect  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man,  and  never  believed  I  should  live  to  have  heard  fall  from  his 
lips,  opinions  so  injurious  to  our  country,  and  so  opposite  to  the 
dignity  of  this  assembly.  If  the  dreadful  picture  which  he  has 
drawn,  be  so  abhorrent  to  his  mind  as  he  has  declared,  let  me  ask 
the  honourable  gentleman,  if  be  has  not  pursued  the  very  means  to 
bring  into  action  the  horrors  which  he  deprecates?  Such  speeches 
within  these  walls,  from  a  character  so  venerable  and  estimable, 
easily  progress  into  overt  acts,  among  the  less  thinking  and  the 
vicious.  Then,  Sir,  I  pray  you  to  remember,  and  the  gentlemen  in 
opposition  not  to  forget,  that  should  these  impious  scenes  com¬ 
mence,  which  my  honorable  friend  might  abhor,  and  which  I  exe¬ 
crate,  whence  and  how  they  began. 

God  of  Heaven  avert  from  rny  country  the  dreadful  curse! 

But  if  the  madness  of  some,  and  the  vice  of  others,  should  risk 
the  awful  appeal,  I  trust  that  the  friends  to  the  paper  on  your  table, 
conscious  of  the  justice  of  their  cause,  conscious  of  the  integrity  of 


Wythb.] 


VIRGINIA 


531 


their  views,  and  recollecting'  their  uniform  moderation,  will  meet  the 
afflicting  call  with  that  firmness  and  fortitude,  which  become  men, 
summoned  to  defend  what  they  conceive  to  be  the  true  interest  of 
ineir  country,  and  will  prove  to  the  world,  that  although  they  boast 
not  in  words  of  love  of  country,  and  affection  for  liberty,  still  they 
are  not  less  attached  to  these  invaluable  objects  than  their  vaunting 
opponents,  and  can  with  alacrity  and  resignation  encounter  every 
difficulty  and  danger  in  defence  of  them. 

The  remainder  of  the  constitution  was  then  read,  and  the  seveial 
objectionable  parts  noticed  by  the  opposition,  particularly  that  which 
related  to  the  mode  pointed  out  by  which  amendments  were  to  be 
obtained  and  after  discussing  it  fully,  the  convention  then  rose. 

Tuesday,  tJie  2Uh  of  Jane,  1788. 

Mr  WYTHE  arose  and  addressed  the  chairman,  but  he  spoke  so 
eery  low,  that  his  speech  could  not  be  fully  comprehended.  He 
took  a  cursory  view  of  the  situation  of  the  United  States,  previous 
to  the  lace  war,  their  resistance  to  the  oppression  of  Great  Britain, 
and  the  glorious  conclusion  and  issue' of  that  arduous  conflict.  To 
perpetuate  the  blessings  of  freedom,  happiness,  and  independence, 
he  demonstrated  the  necessity  of  a  firm  indissoluble  union  of  the 
states.  He  expatiated  on  the  defects  and  inadequacy  of  the  confed¬ 
eration  and  the  consequent  misfortunes  suffered  by  the  people.  He 
pointed  out  the  impossibility  of  securing  liberty  without  society,  the 
impracticability  of  acting  personally,  and  the  inevitable  necessity 
of  delegating  power  to  agents.  He  then  recurred  to  the  system  un¬ 
der  consideration.  He  admitted  its  imperfection,  and  the  propriety 
of  some  amendments. — -But  the  excellency  of  many  parts  of  it  could 
r.ot  be  denied  by  its  warmest  opponents.  He  thought  that  experi¬ 
ence  was  the  best  guide,  and  could  alone  develope  its  consequences. 
Most  of  the  improvements  that  had  been  made  in  the  science  of  go¬ 
vernment,  and  other  sciences,  were  the  result  of  experience.  He 
referred  it  to  the  advocates  for  amendments,  whether  if  they  were 
indulged  with  any  alterations  they  pleased,  there  might  not  still  be 
a  necessity  of  alteration? 

He  then  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  question  of  previ¬ 
ous  or  subsequent  amendments,  i  he  critical  situation  of  America — 
the  extreme  danger  of  dissolving  the  union,  rendered  it  necessary, 
to  adopt  latter  alternative.  He  saw  no  danger  from  this.  It  ap¬ 
peared  to  him  most  clearly,  that  any  amendments  which  might  be 
thought  necessary,  would  be  easily  obtained  after  ratification ,  in  the 
manner  proposed  by  the  constitution,  as  amendments  were  desired 
tby  all  the  states,  and  h  id  already  been  proposed  by  the  several 
states.  lie  then  proposed  that  the  committee  should  ratify  the  con$ti- 


539 


DEBATES. 


[IJekkt^ 


tutlon.  and  that  whatsoever  amendments  nimhl  be  deemed  nesessa- 
ry,  should  be  recommended  to  the  consideration  of  the  congress 
which  should  first  assemble  under  the  constitution,  to  be  acted  upon 
according  to  the  mode  prescribed  therein. 

The  resolution  of  ratification  proposed  by  Mr  Wythe  was  then 
read  by  the  clerk,  which  see  hereafter  in  the  report  of  the  commit¬ 
tee  to  the  convention. 

Mr  HENRY  after  observing,  that  the  proposal  of  ratification  wss 
premature,  and  that  the  importance  of  the  subject  required  the  most 
mature  deliberation,  proceeded  thus  : 

The  honorable  member  must  forgive  me  for  declaring  my  dissent 
from  it:  because,  if  I  understand  it  rightly,  it  admits  that  the  new 
system  is  defective  and  most  capitally.  For  immediately  after  the 
proposed  ratification,  there  comes  a  declaration,  that  the  paper  be¬ 
fore  you,  is  not  intended  to  violate  any  of  these  three  great  rights — 
the  liberty  of  religion,  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the  trial  by  jury. 
What  is  the  inference;  when  yon  enumerate  the  rights  which  you 
are  to  enjoy?  That  those  not  enumerated  are  relinquished.  There 
are  only  three  things  to  be  retained  :  Religion,  freedom  of  the  press, 
and  jury  trial.  Will  not  the  ratification  carry  every  thing,  without 
excepting  these  three  things-.]  Will  not  all  the  world  pronounce, 
that  we  intended  to  give  up  all  the  rest?  Every  thing  it  speaks  of, 
by  way  of  rights,  is  comprised  in  these  things.  Your  subsequent 
amendments,  only  go  to  these  three  amendments. 

I  feel  myself  distressed,  because  the  necessity  of  securing  our 
personal  rights ,  seems  not  to  have  pervaded  the  minds  of  men.  For 
many  other  valuable  things  are  omitted.  For  instance,  general  war¬ 
rants,  by  which  an  officer  may  search  suspected  places,  without  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  commission  of  a  fact,  or  seize  any  person  without  evi¬ 
dence  of  his  crime,  ought  to  be  prohibited.  As  these  are  admitted, 
any  man  may  be  seized,  any  property  may  be  taken,  in  the  most  ar¬ 
bitrary  manner,  without  any  evidence  or  reason.  Every  thing  the 
most  sacred  may  be  searched  and  ransacked  by  the  strong  hand  of 
power.  We  have  infinitely  more  reason  to  dread  general  warrants 
here,  than  they  have  in  England,  because  there,  if  a  person  be  con¬ 
fined,  liberty  may  be  qni-.ckly  obtained  by  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus . 
But  here  a  man  living  many  hundred  miles  from  the  judges,  may 
get  in  prison  before  he  can  get  that  writ. 

Another  most  fatal  omission,  is  with  respect  to  standing  armies. 
— In  our  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia,  they  are  said  to  be  dangerous  10 
liberty,  and  it  tells  you  that  the  propel  defence  of  a  free  state  con¬ 
sists  in  militia,  and  so  I  might  go  on  to  ten  or  eleven  things  of  im- 
raenae  consequence  secured  in  your  trill  of  rights  concerning  which 
that  proposal  is  silent.  Is  that  the  language  of  the  bill  of  rights  in 


Hknrv.] 


VIRGINIA. 


533 


England?  Is  it  the  language  of  the  American  bill  of  rights,  that 
these  three  rights,  and  these  only,  are  valuable?  Is  it  the  language 
of  men  going  into  a  new  government?  Is  it  not  necessary ~to  speak 
of  those  things  before  you  go  into  a  compact?  How  does  these 
three  things  stand?  As  one  of  the  parties,  we  declare  we  do  not 
mean  to  give  them  up.  This  is  a  very  dictatorial.  Much  more  so 
than  the  conduct  which  proposes  alterations  as  the  condition  of  adop¬ 
tion.  In  a  compact  there  are  two  parties,  one  excepting,  and  anoth¬ 
er  proposing.  As  a  party,  we  propose  that  we  shall  secure  these 
three  things;  and  before  we  have  the  assent  of  the  other  contracting 


party,  we  go  into  the  compact,  and  leave  these  things  at  their 
mercy. 

What  will  be  the  consequence?  Suppose  tire  other  states  will  call 
this  dictatorial?  They  will  say,  Virginia  has  gone  into  the  govern¬ 
ment,  and  carried  with  her  certain  propositions,  which,  she  says, 
ought  to  be  concurred  in  by  the  other  states.  They  will  declare 
that  she  has  no  right  to  dictate  to  oilier  states,  the  conditions  on 
which  they  shall  come  into  the  union.  According  to  the  honorable 
member’s  proposal,  the  ratification  will  cease  to  be  obligatory  un¬ 
less  they  accede  to  these  amendments.  We  have  ratified  it.  Yon 
have  committed  a  violation,  will  they  say.  They  have  not  violated 
it.  We  say  we  will  go  out  of  it.  You  are  then  reduced  to  a  sad  di- 
^  lemma:  to  give  up  these  three  rights,  or  leave  the  government.  This 
is  worse  than  our  present  confederation,  to  which  we  have  hitherto 
adhered  honestly  and  faithfully.  We  shall  be  toldy^e  have  viola¬ 
ted  it,  because  we  have  left  it  for  the  infringement  and  violation  of 
conditions,  which  they  never  agreed  to  be  a  part  of  the  ratification. 
The  ratification  will  be  comjdete.  The  proposal  is  made  by  the 
party.  We,  as  the  other,  accede  to  it,  and  propose  the  security  of 
these  three  great  rights;  for  it  is  cnly  a  proposal.  In  order  to  secure 
them,  you  arc  left  in  that  state  of  fatal  hostility,  which  I  shall  as 
much  deplore  as  the  honorable  gentleman.  I  exhort  gentlemen  to 
think  seriously,  before  they  ratify  this  constitution,  and  persuade 
themselves  that  they  will  succeed  in  making  a  feeble  effort  to  get 
amendments. after  adoption. 

With  respect  to  that  part  cf  the  proposal,  w,hich  says  that  every 
power  not  granted  remains  with  the  people,  it  must  be  previous  to 
adoption,  or  it  will  involve  this  country  in  inevitable  destruction. — - 
To  talk  of  it,  as  a  thing  subsequent,  not  as  one  of  your  unalienable 
rights,  is  leaving  it  to  the  casual  opinion  of  the  congress  who  shall 
take  up  the  consideration  of  that  matter.  They  will  not  reason  with 
you  about  the  effect  cf  this  constitution.  They  will  act  take  th* 
opinion  of  this  committee  concerning  its  operation.  They  will  con% 


534 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


strue  it  as  they  please.  If  you  place  it  subsequently,  let  me  ask 
the  consequences'?  Among  ten  thousand  implied  powers  which  they 
may  assume,  they  may,  if  we  be  engaged  in  war,  liberate  every  one 
of  your  slaves  if  they  please.  And  this  must  and  will  be  done  by 
men,  a  majority  of  whom  have  not  a  common  interest  with  you. — > 
They  will,  therefore,  have  no  feeling  of  your  interests.  It  has 
been  repeatedly  said  here,  that  the  great  object  of  a  national  govern¬ 
ment,  was  national  defence.  That  power  which  is  said  to  be 
intended  for  security  and  safety,  maybe  rendered  detestable  and  op¬ 
pressive.  If  they  give  power  to  the  general  government,  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  the  general  defence ,  the  means  must  be  commensurate  to  the 
end.  All  the  means  in  the  possession  of  the  people  must  be  given 
to  the  government  which  is  entrusted  with  the  public  defence. — 
In  this  state  there  are  236,000  blacks,  and  there  are  many  in  several 
other  states.  But  there  are  few  or  none  in  the  northern  states, 
and  yet  if  the  northern  states  shall  be  of  opinion,  that  our  number, 
are  numberless,  they  may  call  forth  every  national  resource.  May 
congress  not  say,  That  ev(ry  black  man  mutt  fight.?  Did  we  see  a 
little  of  this  last  war?  We  were  not  so  hard  pushed,  as  to  make 
emancipation  general.  But  acts  of  assembly  passed,  that  every 
slave  who  would  go  to  the  army  should  be  free.  Another  thing 
will  contribute  to  bring  this  event  about — slavery  is  detested. — > 
We  feel  its  fatal  effects — we  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity  of  human¬ 
ity.  Let  all  these  considerations,  at  some  future  period,  press  with 
full  force  on  the  minds  of  congress.  Let  that  urbanity,  which  I 
trust  will  distinguish  America, and  the  necessity  of  national  defence, 
let  all  these  things  operate  on  their  minds,  they  will  search  that 
paper,  and  see  if  they  have  power  of  manumission?  And  have 
they  not,  Sir?  Have  they  not  power  to  provide  for  the  general  de¬ 
fence  and  welfare  ?  May  they  not  think  that  these  call  for  the  aboli¬ 
tion  of  slavery  ?  May  they  not  pronounce  all  slaves,  free,  and  will 
they  not  be  warranted  by  that  power  ?  There  is  no  ambiguous  im¬ 
plication  or  logical  deduction.  The  paper  speaks  to  the  point :  they 
have  the  power  in  clear  unequivocal  terms,  and  will  clearly  and  cer¬ 
tainly  execise  it.  As  much  as  I  deplore  slavery,  I  see  that  prudence 
forbids  its  abolition.  I  deny  that  the  general  government  ought  to 
set  them  free,  because  a  decided  majority  of  the  states  have  not  the 
ties  of  sympathy  and  follow-feeling  for  those  whose  interest 
would  be  affected  by  their  emancipation.  The  majority  of  congress 
is  to  the  north,  and  the  slaves  are  to  the  south.  t  -  ' 

In  this  situation,  I  see  a  great  deal  of  the  property  of  the  people 
of  Virginia,  in  jeopardy,  and  their  peace  and  tranquillity  gone. — 
I  repeat  it  again,  that  it  wouldx  rejoice  my  very  soul  that  every  one 
of  my  fellow  beings  was  emancipated.  As  we  ought  with  gratitude 


VIRGINIA. 


Hbnrv.]] 


to  admire  that  decree  of  heaven  which  lias  numbered  us  among  the 
free,  we  ought  to  lament  and  deplore  t lie  necessity  pf  holding  our 
fellow-men  in  bondage.  Rut  is  it  practicable  by  any  human  means 
to  liberate  them,  without  producing  the  most  dreadful  and  ruinous 
consequences'?  We  ought  to  possess  them,  in  the  manner  we  inherited 
them  from  our  ancestors, as  their  manumission  is  incompatible  with  the 
felicity  of  our  country.  But  we  ought  to  soften,  as  much  as  possi¬ 
ble,  the  rigor  of  their  unhappy  fate.  I  know  that  in  a  variety  of 
of  particular  instances,  the  legislature  listening  to  complaints* 
have  admitted  their  emancipation.  Let  me  not  dwell  on  this  subject. 
I  will  only  add  that  this,  as  well  as  eveiy  other  property  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Virginia,  is  in  jeopardy, and  put  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  no  similarity  of  situation  with  us.  This  is  a  local  matter  and 
I  can  see  no  propriety  in  subjecting  it  to  congress. 

With  respect  to  subsequent  amendments,  proposed  by  the  worthy 
member,  I  am  distressed  whed  I  hear  the  expression.  It  is  a  new 
one  altogether,  and  such  a  one  as  stands  against  every  idea  of  for¬ 
titude  and  manliness  in  the  states,  or  any  one  else.  Evils  admitted 
in  order  to  be  removed  subsequently,  and  tyranny  submitted  to,  in 
order  to  be  excluded  by  a  subsequent  alteration,  are  things  totally 
new  to  me.  But  I  am  sure  the  gentleman  meant  nothing  but  to 
amuse  the  committee.  I  know  his  candor.  His  proposal  is  an 
idea  dreadful  to  me.  I  ask,  does  experience  warrant  such  a  thing 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  to  this  day  ?  Do  you  enter  into  a 
compact  first,  and  afterwards  settle  the  terms  of  the  of  government? 
It  is  admitted  by  every  one,  that  this  is  a  compact. 

Although  the  confederation  be  lost,  it  is  a  compact  con¬ 
stitution,  or  something  of  that  nature.  I  confess  I  never  heard  of 
such  an  idea  before.  It  is  most  abhorrent  to  my  mind?  You  en¬ 
danger  the  tranuqillity  of  your  country ;  you  stab  its  repose,  if  you 
accept  this  government  unaltered.  How  are  you  to  allay  animosi¬ 
ties  ?  For  such  there  are,  great  and  fatal. 

He  flatters  me  and  tells  me,,  that  I  could  influence  the  people,  and 
reconcile  them  to  it.  Sir,  their  sentiments  are  as  firm  and  steady 
as  they  are  patriotic.  Were  I  to  ask  them  to  apostatize  from  their 
native  religion,  they  would  despise  me.  They  are  not  to  be  shak¬ 
en  in  their  opinions,  with  respect  to  the  propriety  of  preserving 
their  rights.  You  never  can  persuade  them  that  it  is  necessary  to 
relinquish  them.  Were  I  to  attempt  to  persuade  them  to  abandon 
their  patriotic  sentiments,  1  should  look  on  myself  as  the  most  infa* 
mous  of  men. 

I  believe  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  yeomanry  are  in 
decided  opposition  to  it.  I  may  say  with  confidence,  that  for  nine¬ 
teen  counties  adjacent  to  each  other,  nine-tenths  of  the  people  are 
.conscientiously  opposed  to  it.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  give  you 


DEBATES  [Hzkbt* 

it  as  my  opinion:  and  my  opinion  is  founded  on  personal  knowledge 
in  some  measure,  nnd  other  good  authority.  I  have  not  hunted 
popularity  by  declaiming  to  injuro  this  government.  Though  pub¬ 
lic  fame  might  say  so,  it  was  not  owing  to  me  that  this  flame  of 
opposition  has  been  kindled  and  spread.  These  men  never  will 
part  with  their  political  opinions.  If  they  should  see  their  political 
happiness  secured  to  the  latest  posterity,  then  indeed  they  may 
agree  to  it.  Subsequent  amendments  will  not  do  for  men  of  this 
cast.  Do  j7ou  consult  the  union  in  proposing  them?  You  may 
amuse  them  as  long  as  you  please,  but  they  will  never  like  it.  You 
have  not  solid  reality,  the  hearts  and  hands  of  the  men  who  are  to 
be  governed. 

Have  gentlemen  no  respect  to  the  actual  dispositions  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  in  the  adopting  states'?  Look  at  Pennsylvania  and  Massachu¬ 
setts.  These  two  great  states  have  raised  as  great  objections  to 
that  government  as  we  do.  There  was  a  majority  of  only  nineteen 
in  Massachusetts.  We  arc  told,  that  only  10,000  were  represented 
in  Pennsylvania,  although  70,000  had  a  right  to  be  represented.  Is 
not  this  a  serious  thing  ?  Is  it  not  worth  while  to  turn  your  eyes 
for  a  moment  from  subsequent  amendments  to  the  situation  of  your 
country?  Can  you  have  a  lasting  union  in  these  circumstances?  It 
will  be  in  vain  to  expect  it.  But  if  you  agree  to  previous  amend  ¬ 
ments,  you  shall  have  union,  firm  and  solid. 

I  cannot  conclude  without  saying,  that  I  shall  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it,  if  subsequent  amendments  be  determined  upon.  Oppres¬ 
sions  will  bo  carried  on  as  radically  by  the  majority  when  adjust¬ 
ments  and  accommodations  will  be  held  up.  I  say, I  conceive  it  my 
duty,  if  this  government  is  adopted  before  it  is  amended,  to  go  home- 
I  shall  act  as  I  think  my  duty  requires.  Every  other  gentleman 
will  do  the  same.  Previous  amendments,  in  my  opinion,  are  ne¬ 
cessary  to  procure  peace  and  tranquillity.  I  fear,  if  they  be  not 
agreed  to,  every  movement  and  operation  of  government  will  cease, 
and  how  long  that  baneful  thing,  civil  discord,  will  stay  from  this 
country,  God  only  knows.  When  men  are  free  from  restraint,  how 
long  will  you  suspend  their  fury?  The  interval  between  this  and 
bloodshed,  is  but  a  moment.  The  licentious  and  wicked  of  the  com¬ 
munity  will  seize  with  avidity  every  thing  you  hold.  In  this  un¬ 
happy  situation,  what  is  to  be  done?  It  surpasses  my  stock  of 
wisdom.  If  you  will,  in  the  language  of  freemen,  stipulate,  that 
there  are  rights  which  no  man  under  heaven  can  take  from  you, 
you  shall  have  me  going  along  with  }rou  :  not  otherwise. 

[Here  Mr  Henry  informed  the  committee,  that  he  had  a  resolution 
prepared,  to  refer  a  declaration  of  rights,  with  certain  amendments 
to  the  most  exceptionable  parts  of  the  constitution,  to  the  other 


Henry.] 


VIRG1NA. 


S37 


states  in  the  confederacy,  for  their  consideration,  previous  to  its 
ratification.  Tne  clerk  then  read  the  resolution,  the  declaration  of 
rights,  and  amendments,  which  weie  nearly  the  same  as  those  ulti¬ 
mately  proposed  by  the  convention,  which  sec  at  the  conclusion.] 

Mr  HENRY  then  resumed  the  subject.  I  have  thus  candidly  sub¬ 
mitted  to  yon,  Mr  Chaiman,  and  this  cornu  ittee.  what  occurred  to 
me  as  proper  amendments  to  the  cbnstilulion,  and  a  declaration  of 
rights  containing  those  fundamental  unalienable  privileges,  which  I 
conceive  to  be  essential  to  liberty  and  happiness.  I  believe,  that  oa 
a  review  of  these  amendments  it  will  still  he  found,  that  the  arm  of 
power  will  be  sufficiently  strong  for  national  purposes,  when  these 
restrictions  shall  be  a  part  of  the  government.  I  believe  no  gentle¬ 
man  who  opposes  me  in  sentiments,  will  be  able  to  discover  that 
any  one  feature  of  a  strong  government  is  altered,  and  at  the 
same  time  your  unalienable  rights  are  secured  by  them.  The  go¬ 
vernment  unaltered  may  be  terrible  to  America;  but  can  never  ba 
loved,  till  it  be  amended.  You  find  all  the  resources  of  the  contin¬ 
ent  may  be  drawn  to  a  point.  In  danger,  ike  president  may  concen¬ 
tre  to  a  point  every  effioit  of  the  continent.  If  the  government  bo 
constructed  to  satisfy  the  people,  and  remove  their  apprehensions, 
the  wealth  and  the  strength  cf  the  continent  will  go  where  public 
utility  shall  direct.  This  government,  with  these  restrictions,  will 
be  a  strong  government,  united  with  the  privileges  of  the  people. 
In  my  weak  judgment,  a  government  is  strong  when  it  applies  to 
the  most  important  end  cf  all  governments — the  rights  and  privilege® 
cfth8  people.  In  the  honorable  member’s  proposal,  jury  trial,  the 
press  and  religion,  and  other  essential  rights,  are  not  to  be  given  up. 
Other  essential  rights,  what  are  they?  The  world  will  say,  that 
you  intended  to  give  them  up.  When  you  go  into  an  enumeration 
of  your  rights,  and  stop  that  enumeration,  the  inevitable  conclu¬ 
sion  is,  that  what  is  omitted  is  intended  to  be  surrendered. 

Anxious  S3  I  am  to  be  as  little  troublesome  as  possible,  I  cannot 
leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  without  adverting  to  one  remark  of 
the  honorable  gentleman.  He  says,  that  rather  than  bring  th» 
union  into  danger,  he  will  adopt  it  with  its  imperfections.  A  great 
deal  is  said  about  disunion,  and  consequent  dangers.  I  have  no 
claim  to  a  gieater  share  of  fortitude  than  others,  but  lean  see  no 
kind  of  danger.  I  form  my  judgment  on  a  single  fact  alone— that 
we  are  at  peace  with  all  the  world,  nor  is  lhere  any  apparent  causa 
of  a  rupture  with  any  nation  in  the  world.  Is  it  among  the  Ameri¬ 
can  states  that  the  cause  of  disunion  is  to  be  feared  ?  Are  not  th» 
states  using  all  their  efforfs  for  the  promotion  of  union?  New  En¬ 
gland  sacrifices  local  prejudices  for  the  purposes  of  union.  We 
bear  the  necessity  of  the  union,  and  predilection  for  the  union,  is- 


$58 


DEBATES. 


[Henry. 


echoed  from  all  parts  of  the  continent;  and  all  at  once  disunion  is  to 
follow!  If  gentlemen  dread  disunion,  the  very  thing  they  advocate 
will  inevitably  produce  it.  A  previous  ratification  will  raise  insur¬ 
mountable  obstacles  to  union.  New  York  is  an  insurmountable 
obstacle  to  it,  and  North  Carolina  also.  They  will  never  accede  to 
it,  till  it  be  amended.  A  great  part  of  Virginia  is  opposed  most 
decidedly  to  it,  as  it  stands.  This  very  spirit  which  will  govern  us 
in  these  three  states,  will  find  a  kindred  spirit  in  the  adopting  states, 
Give  me  leave  to  say,  that  it  is  very  problematical,  that  the  adopting 
states  can  stand  on  their  own  legs.  I  hear  only  on  one  side,  but  as 
far  as  my  information  goes,  there  are  heart-burnings  and  animosities 
among  them.  Will  these  animosities  be  cured  by  subsequent 
amendments'? 

Turn  away  from  America,  and  consider  European  politics.  The 
nations  there  which  can  trouble  us  are,  France,  England, and  Spain. 
But  at  present  vve  know  for  a  certainty,  that  those  nations  are  en¬ 
gaged  in  very  different  pursuits  from  American  conquests.  We  are 
told  by  our  intelligent  ambassador,  that  there  is  no  such  danger  as 
has  been  apprehended.  Give  me  leave  then  to  say,  that  dangers 
from  beyond  the  Atlantic  are  imaginary. 

From  these  premises  then,  it  may  be  concluded,  that  from  the 
creation  of  the  world,  to  this  time,  there  never  was  a  more  fair  and 
proper  opportunity  than  we  have  at  this  day  to  establish  such  a  go¬ 
vernment,  as  will  permanently  establish  the  most  transcendant  po- 
litical  felicity.1  Since  the]  revolution  there  has  not  been  so  much 
experience. — Since  then,  the  general  interests  of  America  have  not 
been  better  understood,  nor  the  union  more  ardently  loved,  than  at 
.this  present  moment.  I  acknowledge  the  weakness  of  the  old  con¬ 
federation.  Every  man  says,  that  something  must  be  done.  Where 
is  the  moment  more  favorable  than  this!  During  the  war  when  ten 
thousand  dangers  surrounded  usfl  America  was  magnanimous.  What 
was  the  language  of  the  little  state  of  Maryland!  *•  I  will  have 
time  to  consider.  I  will  hold  out  three  years.  Let  what  may  come 
I  will  have  time  to  reflect.”  Magnanimity  appeared  every  where. 
What  was=the  upshot!  America  triumphed.  Is  there  any  thing  to 
forbid  us  to  offer  these  amendments  to  the  other  states!  If  this 
moment  goes  away  unimproved,  we  shall  never  see  its  return. 

We  now  act  under  a  happy  system,  which  says,  that  a  majority 
may  alter  the  government  when  necessary.  But  by  the  paper  pro¬ 
posed  a  majority  will  forever  endeavor  in  vain  to  alter  it.  Three- 
fourths  may.  Is  not  this  the  most  promising  time  for  securing  the 
necessary  alteration!  Will  you  go  into  that  government,  where  it 
is  a  principle,  that  a  contemptible  minority  may  prevent  an  altera¬ 
tion!  What  will  be  the  language  of  the  majority!  Change  the  go- 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


539 


vernment! — Nay,  seven-eights  of  the  people  of  America  may  wish 
the  change;  but  the  minority  may  come  with  a  Roman  veto,  and 
object  to  the  alteration.  The  language  of  a  magnanimous  country 
and  of  freemen  is,  till  you  remove  the  defects  we  will  not  accede. 
It  would  be  in  vain  for  me  to  shew,  that  there  is  no  danger  to  pre¬ 
vent  our  obtaining  those  amendments,  it  you  are  not  convinced  al¬ 
ready.  If  the  other  states  will  not  agree  to  them,  it  is  not  an  in¬ 
ducement  to  union.  The  language  of  this  paper  is  not  dictatorial, 
but  merely  a  proposition  for  amendments.  The  proposition  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  met  with  a  favorable  reception  before.  We  proposed  that  con¬ 
vention  which  met  at  Annapolis.  It  was  not  called  dictatorial. 
We  proposed  that  at  Philadelphia.  Was  Virginia  thought  dictato¬ 
rial1?  But  Virginia  is  now  to  lose  her  pre-eminence.  Those  rights 
of  equality  to  which  the  meanest  individual  in  the  community  is 
entitled,  is  to  bring  us  down  infinitely  below  the  Delaware  people. 
Have  we  not  a  right  to  say,  Hear  our  propositions!  Why,  sir,  your 
slaves  have  a  right  to  make  their  humble  requests. — Those  who 
are  in  the  meanest  occupations  of  human  life,  have  a  right  to 
complain.  What  do  we  require1*  Not  pre-eminence,  but  safety : 
That  our  citizens  may  be  able  to  sit  down  in  peace  and  security  under 
their  own  fig  trees.  Iam  confident  that  sentiments,  like  these,  will 
meet  with  unison  in  every  state.  For  they  will  wish  to  banish  dis¬ 
cord  from  the  American  soil.  I  am  certain  that  the  warmest  friend 
of  the  constitution,  wishes  to  have  fewer  enemies — fewer  of  those 
who  pester  and  plague  him  with  opposition.  I  could  not  withhold 
from  my  fellow-citizens  any  thing  so  reasonable.  I  fear  you  will 
have  no  union,  unless  you  remove  the  cause  of  opposition.  Will 
you  sit  down  contended  with  the  name  of  union,  without  any  solid 
foundation? 

Mr  Henry  then  concluded,  by  expressing  his  hopes,  that  his 
resolution  would  be  adopted,  ar.d  added,  that  if  the  committee 
should  disapprove  of  any  of  his  amendments,  others  might  be  sub¬ 
stituted. 

Gov.  RANDOLPH. — Mr  Chairman,  once  more,  sir,  I  address 
you,  and  perhaps  it  will  be  the  last  time  I  shall  speak  concerning 
this  constitution,  unless  I  be  urged  by  the  observations  of  some  gen¬ 
tlemen.  Although  this  is  not  the  first  time  that  my  mind  has  been 
brought  to  contemplate  this  awful  period,  yet  I  acknowledge  it  is  not 
rendered  less  awful  by  familiarity  with  it.  Did  I  persuade  myself, 
that  those  fair  days  were  present,  which  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  descrihed,  could  I  bring  my  mind  to  believe,  that  there  were 
peace  and  tranquility  in  this  land,  and  that  there  was  no  storm  gath¬ 
ering  which  would  burst,  and  that  previous  amendments  could  be 
retained,  I  would  concur  with  the  honorable  gentleman.  For  noth- 


uo 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


inglbut  the  fear  of  inevitable  destruction,  would  lend  me  to  vote  for 
the  constitution  in  spite  of  the  objections  I  have  to  it.  But,  sir, 
what  have  I  heard  to  day]  I  sympathised  most  warmly  with  what 
other  gentlemen  said  yesterday,  that  let  the  contest  be  what  it  may 
the  minority  should  submit  to  the  majority.  With  satisfaction  and 
joy  I  heard  what  he  then  said — that  lie  would  submit,  and  that  there 
should  be  peace  if  his  power  could  procure  it.  What  a  sad  reverse 
to  day!  Are  we  net  told,  by  way  of  counterpart  to  language  that 
did  him  honor,  that  he  would  secede]  I  hope  he  will  pardon,  and 
correct  me  if  I  misrecite  him,  but  if  not  corrected,  my  interpreta¬ 
tion  is,  that  secession  by  him  will  be  the  consequence  of  adoption 
without  previous  amendments, 

[Here  Mr  HENRY  explained  himself,  and  denied  having  said 
any  thing  of  secession,  but  that  he  said,  he  would  have  no  hand  in 
subsequent  amendments;  that  he  would  lemain  and  vote,  and  after¬ 
wards  he  would  have  no  business  here.] 

I  sec,  continued  his  excellency,  that  I  am  not  mistaken  in  my 
thoughts.  The  honorable  gentleman  says,  he  will  remain  and  vot 
on  the  question,  but  after  that  he  has  no  business  here,  and  that  ho 
will  go  home.  I  beg  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  subject  of  se¬ 
cession.  If  there  be  in  this  house,  members  who  have  in  contem¬ 
plation  to  secede  from  the  majority,  let  me  conjure  them,  by  all  tho 
ties  of  honor  and  duty,  to  consider  what  they  are  about  to  do. 
Somo  of  them  have  more  property  than  1  have,  and  all  of  them  are 
equal  to  me  in  personal  rights.  Such  an  idea  of  refusing  to  submit 
to  the  decision  of  the  majority  is  destructive  of  every  republican 
principle.  It  will  kindle  a  civil  war,  and  reduce  every  thing  to  an¬ 
archy,  and  confusion.  To  avoid  a  calamity  so  lamentable,  I  would 
submit  to  it,  if  it  contained  greater  evils  than  it  dees: 

What  are  they  to  say  to  their  constituents  when  they  go  home] 
**  We  come  here  to  tell  you  that  liberty  is  in  danger,  and  though  the 
majority  is  in  favor  cf  it,  you  ought  not  to  submit.”  Can  any  man 
consider,  without  shuddering  with  horror,  the  awful  consequeces 
of  such  desperate  conduct]  I  entreat  men  to  consider  and  ponder 
what  good  citizenship  requires  of  them.  I  conjure  them  to  con¬ 
template  the  consequences  as  to  themselves,  as  well  as  others. 
They  themselves  will  be  overwhelmed  in  the  general  disorder.  I 
did  not  think  that  the  proposition  of  the  honorable  gentleman  near 
me,  (Mr  White)  could  have  met  with  the  treatment  it  has.  The 
honorable  gentleman  says,  there  are  only  three  rights  stipulated 
in  it.  I  thought  this  error  might  have  been  accounted  for  at  first, 
but  after  lie  read  it,  the  continuance  of  the  mistake  has  astonished 
me.  He  has  wandered  from  the  point.  [Here  he  read  Mr  White’s 
proposition,]  Where  in  this  paper  do  you  discover  that  the  people 
of  Virginia' are  tenacious  cf  three  lights  only]  It  declares,  that 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


641 


all  power  cones  from  the  people,  and  whatever  is  not  granted  by 
them,  remains  with  them.  That  among  other  things,  remaining 
with  them,  are  liberiy  of  the  press,  right  of  conscience,  and  somo 
other  essential  rights.  Could  you  devise  any  express  form  of  words, 
by  which  the  rights  contained  in  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia  could 
be  better  secured  or  more  fully  comprehended!  What  is  the  paper 
which  he  offers  in  the  form  of  a  bill  of  rights!  Will  that  better 
secure  our  rights,  than  a  declaration  like  this!  All  rights  are  therein 
declared  to  be  completely  vested  in  the  people,  unless  expressly 
given  away.  Can  there  be  a  mere  pointed  or  positive  reservation! 

That  honorable  gentleman,  and  some  others,  have  insisted  that 
the  abolition  of  slavery  will  result  from  it,  and  at  the  same  lima 
have  complained  that  it  encourngvs  its  continuation. <  The  incon¬ 
sistency  proves,  m  some  degree,  the  futility  of  their  arguments. 
But  if  it  be  not  conclusive,  to  satisfy  the  committee  that  there  is  no 
danger  of  enfranchisement  taking  place,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  them 
to  the  paper  itself.  I  hope  that  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering 
the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of  philosophy,  will  advance  an  objec¬ 
tion  dishonorable  to  Virginia;  that  at  the  moment  they  are  securing 
the  lights  of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is  started  that  there  is  a 
spark  of  hope  that  those  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage,  may, 
by  the  operation  of  the  general  government,  be  made  free.  But  if 
any  gentleman  be  terrified  by  this  apprehension,  let  him  read  the 
system.  I  ask,  and  I  will  ask  again  and  again,  till  I  be  answered 
(not  by  declamation)  where  is  the  part  that  has  a  tendency  to  ike 
abolition  of  slavery?  Is  it  the  clause  which  says,  that  “  the  migration 
or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  states  now  existing 
shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  congress  prior 
te  the  year  1303!”  This  is  an  exception  from  the  power  of  regu¬ 
lating  commerce,  and  the  restriction  is  only  to  continue  till  1808. 
Then  congress  can,  by  the  exercise  of  that  power,  prevent  future 
importations;  but  does  it  affect  the  existing  state  cf  slavery!  Wero 
it  light  here  to  mention  what  passed  in  convention  on  the  occasion, 
1  miirht  tell  you,  that  the  Southern  Slates,  even  South  Carolina  herself 
conceived  this  'property  to  he  secure  hy  these  words #  I  believe,  whatever 
wo  may  think  here,  that  there  was  not  a  member  of  the  Virginia 
delegation  who  had  the  smallest  suspicion  cf  the  abolition  of  thvery. 
Go  to  their  meaning.  Point  out  the  clause  where  this  formidable 
power  of  emancipation  is  inserted. 

But  another  clause  of  the  constitution  proves  the  absurdity  of  the 


supposition. 


The  words  of  the  clause  arc,  “no  person  held  to 


service  or  labor  in  one  stale,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  b<* 
discharged-  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  ea 


542 


DEBATES. 


[Randolph. 


claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due  ” 
Every  one  knows  that  slaves  are  held  to  service  and  labor.  And 
when  authority  is  given  to  owners  of  slaves  to  vindicate  their  pro¬ 
perty,  can  it  be  supposed  they  can  be  deprived  of  it]  If  a  citizen  of 
this  state,  in  consequence  of  this  clause,  can  take  his  runaway  slave 
in  Maryland,  can  it  be  seriously  thought,  that  after  taking  him  and 
bringing  him  home,  he  could  be  made  free! 

I  observed  that  the  honorable  gentleman's  proposition  come  in  a 
truly  questionable  shape,  and  is  still  more  extraordinary  and  unac¬ 
countable  for  another  consideration:  that  although  we  went  article 
by  article  through  the  constitution,  and  although  we  did  not  expect 
a  general  review  of  the.  subject,  (as  a  most  comprehensive  view 
had  been  taken  of  it,  before  it  was  regularly  debated,)  yet  we  are 
carried  back  to  the  clause  giving  that  dreadful  power,  for  the  gene¬ 
ral  welfare.  Pardon  me,  if  I  remind  you  of  the  true  state  of  that 
business.  I  appeal  to  the  candor  of  the  honorable  gentleman,  and 
if  he  thinks  it  an  improper  appeal,  I  ask  the  gentlemen  here,  whether 
there  be  a  general ,  indefinite,  power  of  providing  for  the  general  wel¬ 
fare!  The  power  is,  “to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  impost,  and 
excises,  to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and 
general  welfare.”  So  that  thejr  can  only  raise  money  by  these 
means,  in  order  to  provide  for  the  general  welfare.  No  man  who 
reads  it  can  say  it  is  general,  as  the  honorable  gentleman  represents 
it.  You  must  violate  every  rule  of  construction  and  common  sense, 
if  you  sever  it  frem  the  power  of  raising  money  and  annex  it  to  any 
thing  else,  in  order  to  make  it  that  formidable  power  which  it  is 
represented  to  be. 

The  honorable  gentleman  says,  there  is  no  restraint  on  the  power 
of  issuing  general  warrants.  If  I  be  tedious  in  asking  where  is  that 
power,  you  will  ascribe  it  to  him  who  has  put  me  to  the  necessity 
of  asking.  They  have  no  such  power  given  them:  if  they  have, 
where  is  it! 

Again  he  recurs  to  standing  armies ,  and  asks  if  congress  cannot 
raise  such.  Look  at  the  bill  of  rights  provided  by  the  honorable 
gentleman  himself,  and  tell  me  if  there  he  no  great  security  by  ad¬ 
mitting  it  when  necessary!  It  says,  that  standing  armies  should  be 
avoided  in  time  of  peace.  It  does  not  absolutely  prohibit  them.  Is 
there  any  clause  in  it,  or  in  the  confederation,  which  prevents  con¬ 
gress  from  raising  an  army!  No— it  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  con¬ 
gress,  It  ought  to  be  in  the  power  of  congress  to  raise  armies,  as 
the  existence  of  the  society  might  at  some  future  period  depend 
upon  it.  But  it  should  be  recommended  to  them  to  use  the  power 
only  when  necessary.  I  humbly  conceive,  that  you  have  as  great 
security  as  you  could  desire  from  that  clause  in  tho  constitution. 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


543 


which  directs  that  money  for  supporting  armies  will  be  voted  for 
every  two  years;  as  by  thi3  means,  the  representatives  who  will 
have  appropriated  money  unnecessarily,  or  imprudently,  to  that  pur¬ 
pose,  may  be  removed,  and  a  new  regulation  made.  Review  the 
practice  of  the  favourite  nation  of  the  honorable  gentleman.  In  their 
bill  of  rights,  there  is  no  prohibition  of  a  standing  army;  but  only 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  maintained  without  the  consent  of  the  legis¬ 
lature.  Can  it  be  done  here  without  the  consent  of  the  democratic 
branch!  Their  consent  is  necessary  to  every  bill,  and  money  bill* 
can  originate  with  them  only.  Can  an  army  then  be  raised  or  sup* 
ported  without  their  approbation! 

[His  excellency  then  went  over  all  the  articles  of  Mr  Henry’s 
proposed  declaration  of  rights,  and  endeavoured  to  prove,  that  the 
rights  intended  to  be  thereby  secured,  were  either  provided  for  in 
the  constitution  itsell,  or  could  not  be  infringed  by  the  general 
government,  as  being  unwarranted  by  any  of  the  powers  which  were 
delegated  therein;  for  that  it  was  in  vain  to  provide  against  the  ex¬ 
ercise  of  a  power  which  did  not  exist.] 

He  then  proceeded  to  examine  the  nature  of  some  of  the  amend¬ 
ments  proposed  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  As  to  the  reservation 
of  rights  not  expressly  given  away,  he  repeated  what  he  had  before 
observed,  of  the  second  article  of  the  confederation,  that  it  was 
interpreted  to  prohibit  congress  from  gianting  passports,  although 
such  a  power  was  necessarily  incident  to  that  of  making  war.  Did 
not  this,  says  he,  shew  the  vanity  of  all  the  federal  authority!  Gen* 
tlemen  have  displayed  great  wisdom  in  the  use  they  make  of  th^ 
experience  of  the  defects  in  the  old  confederation.  When  we  see 
the  defect  of  that  article,  are  we  to  repeat  it!  Are  those  gentleman 
zealous  friends  to  the  union,  who  profess  to  be  so  here,  and  yet  in¬ 
sist  on  a  repetition  of  measures  which  have  been  found  destructive 
to  it!  I  believe  their  professions,  but  they  must  pardon  me  when  I 
say  their  arguments  are  not  true. 

[His  excellency  then  read  the  second  amendment  proposed, 
respecting  the  number  of  representatives.'] 

What  better  security  have  you  under  these  words,  than  under  the 
clause  in  the  paper  before  you!  This  puts  it  in  the  power  of  your 
representatives  to  continue  the  number  of  it  is  in  that  paper.  They 
may  always  find  a  pretext  to  justify  their  regulations  concerning  it. 
They  may  continue  the  number  at  two  hundred,  when  an  augmenta¬ 
tion  would  be  necessary. 

As  to  the  amendment  respecting  direct  taxation,  the  subject  ha« 
been  so  fully  handled,  and  is  so  extensive  in  its  nature,  that  it  is 
needless  to  say  any  thing  of  it. 

The  4th  amendment  goes  on  the  wide  field  of  indiscriminate  sus¬ 
picion,  that  every  one  grasps  after  offices,  and  that  congress  will 


544  DEBATES.  [Randolph. 

create  them  unnecessarily.  Perhaps  it  will  exclude  the  most  proper 
from  offices  of  great  importance  to  the  community. 

[Here  he  read  the  5th  amendment.] — I  beg  the  honorable  gentle¬ 
man  to  tell  me  on  what  subject  congress  wilj  exercise  this  power 
improperly.  If  there  be  any  treachery  in  their  view,  the  words  in 
this  amendment  are  broad  enough  to  allow  it.  It  is  as  good  a  se¬ 
curity  in  this  constitution,  as  human  ingenuity  can  devise:  for  if 
they  intend  any  treachery,  they  will  not  let  you  see  it. 

[Here  he  read  the  7th  and  8th  amendments.]— I  have  never  hesi¬ 
tated  to  acknowledge,  that  I  wished  the  regulation  of  commerce  had 
been  put  in  the  hands  of  a  greater  body  than  i i  is  in  the  sense  of  the 
constitution.  But  I  appeal  to  my  colleagues  in  the  federal  conven¬ 
tion,  whether  this  was  not  a  slr^e  qua  non  of  the  union.  Of  all  the 
amendments,  this  is  the  most  destructive,  which  requires  the  con¬ 
sent  of  three-fourths  pf  both  houses  to  treaties  ceding  or  restraining 
territorial  rights.  This  is  priding  in  the  Virginia  sovereignty  in  op¬ 
position  to  the  majority.  This  suspected  congress,  these  corrupt  05 
and  corrupt  26,  are  brought  so  low  they  cannot  be  trusted,  lest  they 
should  have  it  in  their  power  to  lepofif  part  of  Virginia,  cede  it,  so  as 
that  it  should  become  a  colony  to  some  foreign  state.  There  is  no 
power  in  the  constitution  to  cede  any  part  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States.  The  whole  number  of  congress,  being  unanimous,  have  no 
power  to  suspend  or  cede  territorial,  rights.  But  this  amendment 
admits,  in  the  fullest  latitude,  that  congress  have  a  rightto  dismem¬ 
ber  the  empire. 

His  amendment  respecting  the  miiitia  is  unnecessary.  The  same 
powers  rest  in  the  states  by  the  constitution.  Gentlemen  were  re¬ 
peatedly  called  upon  to  shew  where  the  power  of  the  states  over  the 
militia  was  taken  away,  but  they  could  not  point  it  out. 

[He  read  the  12th  amendment.]— Will  this  be  a  melioration  of 
the  constitution?  I  w  ish  to  know  what  is  meant  by  the  words  police 
and  good  government?  These  words  may  lead  to  complete  tyranny 
in  congress.  Perhaps  some  gentlemen  think  that  these  words  relate 
to  particular  objects,  and  that  they  will  diminish  and  confine  their 
power.—' They  are  most  extensive  in  their  significations,  and  will 
stretch  and  dilate  it.,  and  all  the  imaginary  horrors  of  the  honorable 
gentleman  will  be  included  in  this  amendment. 

[He  read  the  13th  amendment.] — 1  was  of  this  opinion  myself — 
but  I  informed  you  before  why  1  changed  it. 

[He  read  the  14th  amendment.] — if  I  were  to  propose  an  amend¬ 
ment  on  this  subject,  it  would  be  to  limit  the  word  arising.  I  would 
not  discard  it  altogether,  but  define  its  extent.  The  jurisdiction  of 
she  judiciary  in  cases  arising  under  the  system,  I  should  wish  to  be 
«Ufmed,  so  as  to  prevent  its  being  extended  unnecessarily;  I  would 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


545 


restrain  the  appellate  cognizance  as  to  fact,  and  prevent  oppressive 
and  vexatious  appeals. 

{He  read  the  15th  amendment.] — The  right  of  challenging  and 
excepting,  I  hope,  has  clearly  appeared  to  the  committee  to  be  a  ne¬ 
cessary  appendage  of  the  trial  by  jury  itself.  Permit  me  now  to 
make  a  few  remarks  on  the  proposal  of  these  amendments,  previous 
to  our  ratification.  The  first  objection  arises  from  the  paper  itself. 
Can  you  conceive,  or  does  any  man  believe,  that  there  are  twelve, 
or  even  nine  states  in  the  whole  union,  that  would  subscribe  to  this 
paper? — A  paper  fraught  with  perhaps,  more  defects  than  the  con¬ 
stitution  itself.  What  are  we  about  to  do?  To  make  this  the  con¬ 
dition  of  our  coming  into  this  government.  I  hope  gentlemen  will 
never  agree  to  this.  If  we  declare  that  these  amendments,  and  a 
bill  of  rights  containing  twenty  articles,  must  be  incorporated  into 
the  constitution,. before  we  assent  to  it,  I  ask  you,  whether  you  may 
not  bid  a  long  farewell  to  the  union?  It  will  produce  that  deplora¬ 
ble  thing — the  dissolution  of  the  union,  which  no  man  yet  has  dared 
openly  to  advocate?  No,  say  the  gentlemen,  because  Maryland 
kept  off  three  years  from  the  confederacy,  and  no  injury  happened. 
This  very  argument  carries  its  own  refutation  with  it.  The  war 
kept  us  together,  in  spite  of  the  discordance  of  the  states.  There  is 
no  war  now.  All  the  nations  of  Europe  have  their  eyes  fixed  on 
America,  and  some  of  them  perhaps  cast  wistful  looks  at  you. 
Their  gold  may  be  tried  to  sow  disunion  among  us.  Thename  ban¬ 
dage  which  kept  us  before  together,  does  not  now  exist.  Let  gen¬ 
tlemen  seriously  ponder  the  calamitous  consequences  of  dissolving 
the  union  in  our  present  situation  I  appeal  to  the  great  searcher  of 
hearts  on  this  occasion,  that  behold  the  greatest  danger  that  ever  hap¬ 
pened,  hanging  over  us.  Fcr  previous  amendments  are  but  another 
name  for  rejection.  They  will  throw  Virginia  out  of  the  union,  and 
cause  heart  aches  to  many  of  those  gentleman  who  may  vote  for 
them.  But  let  us  consider  things  calmly.  Reflect  on  the  facility 
of  obtaining  amendments  if  you  adopt,  and  weigh  the  danger  if  you 
do  not.  Recollect  that  many  other  states  have  adopted  it,  who  wish 
for  many  amend ments.  I  ask  you,  if  it  be  not  bettor  to  adopt  and 
run  the. chance  of  amending  it  hereafter,  than  run  the  risk  of  endan¬ 
gering  the  union?  The  confederation  is  gone:  it  has  no  authority.. 
If  in  this  situation  wc  reject  the  constitution,  the  union  will  be  dis¬ 
solved,  the  dogs  of  war  will  break  loose,  and  anarchy  and  discord 
will  complete  the  ruin  of  this  country.  Previous  .adoption  will  pre¬ 
vent  these  deplorable  mischiefs.  The  union  of  sentiments  with  us  in 
the  adopting  states,  will  render  subsequent  amendments  easy.  I 
therefore  rest  my  happiness  with  perfect  confidence  on  this  subject. 

VOL.  3.  35 


546  DEBATES.  [Dawson 

Mr  GEORG'E  MASON. — Mr  Chairman,  with  respect  to  com-» 
merce  and  navigation,  he  has  given  it  as  his  opinion,  that  their  regu-' 
lation,  as  it  now  stands,  was  a  sine  qua  non  of  the  union,  and  that 
without  it,  the  states  in  convention  would  never  concur.  I  differ 
from  him.  It  never  was,  nor  in  my  opinion  ever  will  be,  a  sine  qua 
non  of  the  union. 

f 

I  will  give  you,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  history  of  that 
affair.  This  business  was  discussed  at  Philadelphia  for  four  months, 
during  which  time  the  subject  of  commerce  and  navigation  was  oft¬ 
en  under  consideration  and  I  assert,  that  eight  states  out  of  twelve, 
for  more  than  three  months,  voted  for  requiring  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present  in  each  house  to  pass  commercial  and  navigation 
laws.  True  it  is,  that  afterwards  it  was  carried  by  a  majority,  as  it 
Stands.  If  I  arh  right,  there  was  a  great  majority  for  requiring  two- 
thirds  of  the  stales  in  this  business,  till  a  compromise  took  place  be¬ 
tween  the  northern  and  southern  states;  the  northern  states  agreeing 
te  the  temporary  importation  of  slaves,  and  the  southern  states  con¬ 
ceding, in  return, that  navigation  and  commercial  laws  should  be  on  the 
footing  which  they  now  stand.  If!  am  mistaken,  let  me  be  put 
right.  Those  are  my  reasons  for  saying  that  this  was  not  a  sine 
qua  non  of  their  c  oncurrence.  The  Newfoundland  fisheries  will 
require  that  kind  of  security  which  we  are  now  in  want  of.  The 
eastern  states  therefore  agreed  at  length,  that  treaties  should  require 
the  consent  of  two  thirds  of  the  members  present  in  the  senate. 

Mr  DAWSON.  Mr  Chairman,  when  a  nation  is  about  to  make  at 
change  in  its  political  character,  it  behoves  it  to  summon  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  ages  which  have  passed,  to  collect  the  wisdom  of  the  present 
day,  to  ascertain  cleaily  those  great  priciples  of  equal  liberty,  which 
Secure  the  rights,  liberties  and  properties  of  the  people.  Such  is  the 
situation  of  the  United  States  at  this  moment,  we  are  about  to  make 
such  a  change. 

The  constitution  proposed  for  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
has  been  a  subject  of  general  discussion;  while  many  able  and 
konorable  gentlemen  within  these  walls,  have,  in  the  develope- 
ment  of  the  various  parts,  delivered  their  sentiments  with  that 
freedom  which  will  ever  mark  the  citizens  of  an  independent 
state,  and  with  that  ability  which  will  prove  to  the  world  their 
eminent  talents,  I,  Sir,  although  urged  by  my  feelings,  have  fore¬ 
bore  to  say  any  thing  on  my  part,  from  a  satisfactory  impression 
of  the  inferiority  of  my  talents,  and  from  a  wish  to  acquire  every 
information  which  might  assist  my  judgment,  in  forming  2 
decision  on  a  question  of  such  magnitude.-— But,  Sir,  as  it  in¬ 
volves  in  its  late,  the  interest  of  so  extensive  a  country, 


Dawson.] 


VIRGINIA, 


547 


every  sentiment  which  can  be  offered,  deserves  its  proportion  of 
public  attention.  I  shall  therefore  avoid  any  apology  for  now  rising; 
although  uncommon  propriety  might  justify  it,  and  rather  trust  to  the 
candor  of  those  who  hear  me.  Indeed  I  am  induced  to  come  for¬ 
ward, not  from  any  apprehension  that  my  opinion  will  have  weight, 
bnt  in  order  to  discharge  that  duty  which  I  owe  to  myself,  and  to 
those  I  have  the  honor  to  represent. 

The  defects  of  the  articles  by  which  we  are  at  present  confedera- 
ted,  have  been  echoed  and  re-echoed,  not  only  from  every  quarter 
of  this  house,  but  from  every  part  of  the  continent.  At  the  framing 
of  those  articles,  a  common  interest  excited  us  to  unite  for  the  com¬ 
mon  good.  But  no  sooner  did  this  principle  cease  to  operate,  than 
the  defects  of  the  system  were  sensibly  felt.  Since  then  the  seeds 
of  civil  dissention  have  been  gradually  opening,  and  political  confu¬ 
sion  has  pervaded  the  states.  During  the  short  time  of  my  political 
life,  having  been  fully  impressed  with  the  truth  of  these  observa¬ 
tions,  when  a  proposition  was  made  by  Virginia  to  invite  the  sister 
states  to  a  general  convention,  at  Philadelphia,  to  amend  these  defects , 
I  readily  gave  my  assent;  and  when  I  considered  the  very  respect¬ 
able  characters  who  formed  that  bod}’’ — when  I  reflected  that  they 
were,  most  of  them,  those  sages  and  patriots,  under  whose  banners 
and  hv  whose  councils,  it  had  been  rescued  from  impending  danger, 
and  placed  among  the  nations  of  the  earth — when  I  also  turned  my 
attention  to  that  illustrious  character,  to  immortalize  memory,  Fame 
shall  blow  her  trump  to  the  latest  ages,  I  say,  when  I  weighed  all 
these  considerations,  I  was  almost  persuaded  to  declare  in  favor  of 
the  proposed  plan,  and  to  exert  my  slender  abilities  in  its  favor. — 
But  when  I  came  to 'investigate  it  impartially,  on  the  immutable 
principles  of  government,  and  to  exercise  that  reason,  with  which 
the  God  of  nature  hath  endowed  me,  and  which  I  will  ever  freely 
use,  I  was  convinced  of  this  important,  though  melancholy  truth, 
that  the  greatest  men  may  err,  and  that  their  errors  are  sometimes 
of  the  greatest  magnitude,  I  was  persuaded  that,  although  the  pro¬ 
posed  plan  contains  many  things  excellent,  yet  by  the  adoption  of  it 
;;s  it  now  stands,  the  liberties  of  America  in  general,  the  property 
of  Virginia  in  particular,  would  be  endangered. 

These  being  my  sentiments — sentiments  which  I  offer  with  the 
diffidence  of  a  young  politician,  but  with  the  firmness  of  a  republi¬ 
can,  which  I  am  ready  to  change  when  I  am  convinced  they  are 
founded  in  error,  but  which  I  will  support  until  that  conviction — I 
ahould  be  a  traitor  to  my  country,  and  unworthy  that  freedom,  for 
which  I  trust  I  shall  ever  remain  an  advocate,  was  I  to  declare  my 
entire  approbation  of  the  plan,  as  it  now  stands,  or  assent  to  its  rati- 
Ication  without  previous  amendments. 


548 


DEBATES. 


LDaWSOK' 


During  the  deliberations  of  this  convention,  several  gentlemen  of 
eminent  talents,  having  exerted  themselves  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  the  union,  by  presenting  to  our  view  the  relative  situation  of  Vir¬ 
ginia  to  the  other  states,  the  melancholy  representation  made  to  day, 
and  frequently  before,  by  an  honorable  gentleman,  (Gov.  Randolph,) 
of  our  state,  reduced,  in  his  estimation,  to  the  lowest  degree  of  de¬ 
gradation,  must  now  haunt  the  recollection  of  many  gentlemen  in 
this  committee,  how  far  he  has  drawn  the  picture  to  the  life,  or 
where  it  is  too  highly  colored,  rests  with  them  to  determine.  To 
gentlemen,  however,  sir,  of  their  abilities,  the  task  was  easy,  and 
perhaps  I  may  add  unnecessary.  It  is  a  truth  admitted  on  all  sides, 
and  I  presume  there  is  not  a  gentleman,  who  hears  me,  who  is  not 
a  friend  to  a  union  of  the  thirteen  states. 

But,  sir,  an  opinion  has  gone  abroad  (from  whence  it  originated, 
or  by  whom  it  is  supported,  I  will  not  venture  to  say)  that  the  op¬ 
ponents  to  the  paper  on  your  table,  are  enemies  to  the  union;  it  may 
not  therefore,  be  improper  for  me  to  declare,  that  I  am  a  warm  friend 
to  a  firm,  federal,  energetic  government;  that  I  consider  a  confedera¬ 
tion  of  the  states,  on  republican  principles,  as  a  security  to  their 
mutual  interests,  and  a  disunion  as  injurious  to  the  whole:  but  I 
shall  lament  exceedingly,  when  a  confederation  of  independent  states 
shall  be  converted  into  a  consolidated  government;  for  when  that 
event  shall  happen,  I  shall  consider  the  history  of  American 
liberty  as  short  as  it  has  been  brilliant,  and  we  shall  afford  one 
more  proof  to  the  favorite  maxim  of  tyrants,  “that  mankind  cannot 
govern  themselves.” 

An  honorable  gentleman  (Col.  H.  Lee)  come  forward  some  days 
since,  with  all  the  powers  of  eloquence,  and  all  the  warmth  of  en¬ 
thusiasm;  after  descanting  on  some  military  operations  to  the  south, 
of  which  he  was  a  spectator,  and  pronouncing  sentence  of  condemn¬ 
ation  on  a  Mr  Shays,  to  the  north;  as  a  military  character,  he  boldly 
throws  the  gauntlet,  and  defies  the  warmest  friend  to  the  opposition 
to  come  forth  and  say  that  the  friends  to  the  system  on  your  table, 
are  not  also  friends  to  the  republican  liberty. 

Arguments,  Sir,  in  this  house,  should  ever  be  addressed  to  the 
reason,  and  should  be  applied  to  the  system  itself,  and  not  to  those 
who  either  support  or  oppose  it.  I,  however,  dare  come  forth,  and 
tell  that  honorable  gentleman,  not  with  the  military  warmth  of  a 
young  soldier,  but  with  the  firmness  of  a  republican,  that  in  my 
humble  opinion,  had  the  paper  now  on  your  table,  and  which  is  so 
ably  supported,  been  presented  to  cur  view  ten  years  ago  (when  the 
American  spirit  shone  forth  in  the  meridian  of  glory,  and  rendered 
us  the  wonder  of  an  admiring  world)  it  would  have  been  considered 


Dawson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


543 


^8  containing  principles  incompatible  with  republican  liberty,  and 
therefore  doomed  to  infamy. 

Having,  Sir,  made  these  loose  observations,  and  having  proved,  I 
flatter  myself,  to  this  honorable  convention,  the  motives  from  which 
my  opposition  to  the  proposed  system  originated,  may  I  now  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  turn  my  attention,  for  a  very  few  moments,  to  the  system 
itself, and  to  point  out  some  of  the  leading  parts  most  exceptionable  in 
my  estimation,  and  to  which  my  original  objections  have  not  been  re¬ 
moved,  by  the  debate,  but  rather  confirmed. 

If  we  grant  to  congress  the  power  of  direct  taxation,  if  we  yield 
to  them  the  sword,  and  if  we  also  invest  them  with  the  judicial  au¬ 
thority,  two  questions  of  the  utmost  importance,  immediately  pre 
sent  themselves  to  our  inquiries;  whether  these  powers  will  not  be 
oppressive  in  their  operations,  and,  aided  by  other  parts  of  the  sys¬ 
tem,  convert  the  thirteen  confederated  states  into  one  consolidated 
government;  and  whether  any  country,  as  extensive  as  North  Amer¬ 
ica,  and  where  climates,  dispositions,  and  interests,  are  so  essential¬ 
ly  different,  can  be  governed  under  one  consolidated  plan;  except  by 
the  introduction  of  despotic  principles. 

The  warmest  friends,  Sir,  to  the  government,  some  of  those  who 
formed,  signed,  and  have  recommended  it,  some  of  those  who  have 
enthusiastically  supported  it  in  every  quarter  of  this  continent,  have 
answered  my  first  query  in  the  affirmative:  they  have  admitted  that 
it  possesses  few  federal  features  and  will  ultimately  end  in  a  con¬ 
solidated  government;  a  truth,  which  in  my  opinion,  they  would  have 
denied  in  vain;  for  every  article,  every  section,  every  clause,  and 
almost  every  line,  prove  that  it  will  have  this  tendency:  and  if  this 
position  has,  during  the  course  of  the  long  and  learned  debates  on 
this  head,  been  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  convention,  I 
apprehend  that  the  authority  of  all  eminent  writers  on  the  subject, 
and  the  experience  of  all  ages,  cannot  be  controverted,  and  that  it 
will  be  admitted  that  no  government  formed  on  the  principles  of 
freedom,  can  pervade  all  North  America. 

This,  sir,  is  my  great  objection,  an  objection  general  in  its  nature, 
because  it  operates  on  the  whole  system;  an  objection  which  I  ear¬ 
ly  formed,  which  1  flattered  myself  would  have  been  removed,  but 
which  hath  obliged  me  to  say, has  been  confirmed  by  the  observations 
which  have  been  made  by  many  learned  gentlemen,  and  which 
would  be  tedious  for  me  now  to  recapitulate. 

That  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers;  should  be 
separate  and  distinct,  in  all  free  governments,  is  a  political  fact,  so 
well  established,  that  I  presume  I  shall  not  be  thought  arrogant, 
when  I  affirm  that  no  country  ever  did,  or  ever  can,  long  remain 


550 


DEBATES. 


[Dawson# 


free,  where  thsy  are  blended.  All  the  states  have  been  in  this  sen¬ 
timent,  when  they  formed  their  state  constitutions,  and  therefore 
have  guarded  against  the  danger;  and  every  school  hoy  in  politics 
must  be  convinced  of  the  propriety  of  the  observation — and  yet  by 
the  proposed  plan,  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  are  closely 
united;  the  senate  who  compose  one  part  of  the  legislature,  are  also 
as  council  to  the  president,  the  supreme  head,  and  are  concerned  ia 
passing  laws,  which  they  themselves  are  to  execute. 

The  wisdom,  Sir,  of  many  nations,  has  induced  them  to  enlarge 
the  powers  of  their  rulers,  but  there  are  very  few  instances  of  the 
relinquishment  of  power  or  the  abridgement  of  authority,  on  the  part 
of  the  governors.  The  very  first  clause  of  the  eighth  section  of  the 
first  article,  which  gives  to  congress  the  power  “  to  lay  and  collect 
axes,  duties,  imposts,  excises,  &c.  &c.”  appears  to  me  to  be  big 
with  unnecessary  danger,  and  to  reduce  human  nature,  to  which  I 
would  willingly  pay  a  compliment  did  not  the  experience  of  all  ages 
rise  up  against  me,  to  too  great  a  test.  The  arguments.  Sir,  which 
have  been  urged  by  some  gentlemen  that  the  impost  will  defray  all 
expenses,  in  my  estimation,  cannot  be  supported,  and  common  sense 
will  never  assent  to  the  assertions  which  have  been  made,  that  the 
government  will  not  be  an  additional  expense  to  this  country.  Will 
not  the  support  of  an  army  and  navy — will  not  the  establishment  of 
a  multiplicity  of  offices  in  the  legislative,  executive,  and  particular¬ 
ly  the  judiciary  departments,  most  of  which  will  be  of  a  national 
character,  and  must  be  supported  with  a  superior  degree  of  dignity 
and  credit,  be  prodigious  additions  to  the  national  expense?  And* 
Sir,  if  the  states  are  to  retain  even  a  shadow  of  sovereignty,  the  ex¬ 
pence  thence  arising  must  also  be  defrayed,  and  will  be  very  con¬ 
siderable. 

I  come  now,  Sir,  to  speak  of  a  clause,  to  which  our  attention  has. 
been  frequently  called,  and  on  which  many  gentleman  have  already 
delivered  their  sentiments;  a  clause,  in  the  estimation  of  some,  of 
little  consequence,  and  which  rather  serves  as  a  pretext  for  scuf¬ 
fling  for  votes,  but  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  one  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  contained  in  the  system  and  to  which  there  are  many  and 
weighty  objections.  I  refer  to  the  clause  empowering  the  presi¬ 
dent  by  and  with  the  consent  of  two  thirds  of  the  senators  present, 
to  make  treaties.  If,  Sir,  the  dismemberment  of  the  empire — if  the 
privation  of  the  most  essential  national  rights,  and  the  very  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  people,  depend  on  this  clause,  surely,  Sir,  it  merits  the 
mo3t  thorough  investigation  and  if,  on  that  investigation,  it  appears 
that  those  great  rights  are  endangered,  it  highly  behoves  us  to  a- 
mend  it  in  such  a  manner  as  will  prevent  the  evils  which  may  arise 
from  it  as  it  now  stands.  My  objections  to  it  do  not  arise  from  a 


Bawsok.] 


VIRGINIA. 


551 


view  of  the  particular  situation  of  the  western  part  of  this  state,  al¬ 
though  certainly  we  are  bound  by  every  principle,  to  attend  to  the 
interest  of  our  fellow  citizens  in  that  quarter,  but  from  an  apprehen¬ 
sion  that  the  principle  pervades  all  America,  and  that  in  its  opera¬ 
tion,  it  will  be  found  highly  injurious  to  the  southern  states.  It 
will,  I  presume,  be  readily  admitted,  that  the  dismemberment  of 
empire  is  the  highest  act  of  soveieign  authority,  the  exercise  of 
which  can  be  authorized  only  by  absolute  authority, exclusive  then, 
sir,  of  any  consideration  which  arises  from  the  particular  system  of 
American  politics,  the  guard  established  against  the  exercise  of  this 
power,  is  by  far  too  slender. 

The  president  with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  senate 
present,  may  make  a  treaty,  by  which  any  territory  may  be  ceded, 
or  the  navigation  of  any  river  surrendered;  thereby  granting  to  five 
states  the  exercise  of  a  right  acknowledged  to  be  the  highest  act  of 
sovereignty — to  fifteen  men,  not  the  representatives  of  the  country 
to  be  ceded,  but  as  has  already  happened,  men  whose  interest  and 
policy  it  may  be  to  make  such  surrender.  Admitting  for  a  moment, 
that  this  point  is  as  well  guarded  by  the  proposed  plan,  as  by  the 
old  articles  of  confederation,  to  which,  however,  common  sense  cap 
never  assent,  have  we  not  already  had  cause  to  tremble,  and  ought 
we  not  to  guard  against  the  accomplishment  of  a  scheme,  to  which 
nothing  but  an  inattention  to  the  general  interest  of  America,  and  a 
selfish  regard  to  the  interest  of  particular  states,  could  have  given 
Tise.  Surely,  sir,  we  ought;  and  since  we  have  already  seen  a  dia¬ 
bolical  attempt  made  to  surrender  the  navigation  of  a  river,  the 
source  of  which  is  as  yet  unknown,  and  on  which  depends  impor¬ 
tance  of  the  southern  part  of  America — since  we  have  every  reason 
to  believe  that  the  same  principle  which  at  first  dictated  this  meas¬ 
ure,  still  exists,  and  will  forevei  operate,  it  is  our  duty,  a  duty  which 
we  owe  to  ourselves,  which  we  owe  to  the  southern  part  of  Ameri¬ 
ca,  and  which  we  owe  to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind,  to  guard 
against  it  in  such  manner,  as  will  forever  prevent  its  accomplish¬ 
ment.  This,  sir,  is  not  done  by  the  clause,  nor  will  it  rest  on  that 
sure  footing  which  I  wish,  and  which  the  importance  of  the  subject 
demands,  until  the  concurrence  of  three  fourths  of  all  the  senators , 
shall  be  requisite  to  ratify  a  treaty  respecting  the  cession  of  terri¬ 
tory;  the  surrender  of  the  navigation  of  rivers,  or  the  use  of  all  the 
American  seas. 

That  sacred  palladium  of  liberty,  the  freedom  of  the  press,  the 
Influence  of  which  is  so  great,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  ablest 
writers,  that  no  country  can  remain  long  in  slavery  -where  it  is  re¬ 
strained,  has  not  been  expressed,  nor  are  the  liberties  of  the  people 
ascertained  and  protected  by  any  declaration  of  rights — that  inesti- 


553 


DEBATES. 


[Dawson. 


mable  privilege,  the  most  important  which  freemen  can  enjoy,  the’ 
trial  by  jury  in  all  civil  cases  has  not  been  guarded  by  the  system — 
and  while  they  have  been  inattentive  to  these  all  important  consid¬ 
erations,  they  have  made  provision  for  the  introduction  of  standing 
armies  in  time  of  peace — these,  sir,  ever  have  been  used  as  the 
grand  machines  to  suppres  s  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  will  ever 
awaken  the  jealousy  of  republicans,  so  Jong  as  liberty  is  dear,  and 
tyranny  odious  to  mankind. 

Congress,  sir,  have  the  power  to  “  to  declare  war,”  and  also  to 
raise  and  support  armies,  and  if  we  suppose  them  to  be  a  represen¬ 
tation  of  the  states,  the  nexus  imperu  of  the  British  constitution  is 
here  lost — there  the  king  has  the  power  of  declaring  war,  and  the 
parliament  that  of  raising  money  to  support  it.  Governments  ought 
not  to  depend  on  an  army  for  their  support,-  but  ought  to  be  so  formed 
as  to  have  the  confidence,  respect,  and  affection  of  the  citizens. 
Some  degree  of  virtue,  sir,  must  exist,  or  freedom  cannot  live.  A 
standing  army  will  introduce  idleness  and  extravagance,  which  will 
be  followed  by  their  sure  concomitant  vices.  In  a  country,  exten¬ 
sive  like  ours,  the  power  of  the  sword  is  more  sensibly  felt,  than  in 
a  small  community.  The  advantages,  sir,  of  military  science  and 
discipline  cannot  be  exerted  unless  a  proper  number  of  soldiers  are 
united  in  one  bod y,  and  actuated  by  one  soul.  The  tyrant  of  a  sin¬ 
gle  town,  or  a  small  district,  would  soon  discover  that  an  hundred 
armed  soldiers  were  a  weak  defence  against  ten  thousand  peasants 
or  citizens:  but  ten  thousand  well  discipline  soldiers  will  command, 
with  despotic  sway,  millions  of  subjects,  and  will  strike  terror  into 
the  most  numerous  populace.  It  was  this,  sir,  which  enabled  the 
Pmtorean  bands  of  Rome,  whose  number  scarcely  amounted  to  ten 
thousand,  after  having  violated  the  sanctity  of  the  throne,  by  the 
attrocious  murder  of  a  most  excellent  emperor,  to  dishonor  the  ma¬ 
jesty  of  it,  by  proclaiming  that  the  Roman  empire-— the  mistress  of 
the  world — was  to  be  disposed  of  to  the  highest  bidder,  at  public 
auction; — and  to  their  licentious  frenzy  may  be  attributed  the  first 
cause  of  the  decline  and  fall  of  that  mighty  empire.  We  ought 
therefore  strictly  to  guard  against  the  establishment  of  an  army, 
whosy  only  occupation  would  be  idleness,  whose  only  effort  the  in¬ 
troduction  of  vice  and  dissipation,  and  who  would,  at  some  future 
day  deprive  us  of  our  liberties,  as  a  reward  for  past  favors,  by  the 
introduction  of  some  military  despot. 

I  had  it  in  contemplation,  to  have  made  some  observations  on  the 
disposition  of  the  judicial  powers,  but  as  my  knowledge  in  that  line 
is  confined,  and  as  the  subjects  has  been  so  ably  handled  by  other 
gentlemen,  and  the  defects  clearly  developed,  and  as  their  arguments 
remain  unanswered,  I  shall  say  nothing  on  that  head;— the  want  of 


I 


VIRGINIA. 


IDawsoJc.] 


553 


responsibility  to  the  people  from  their  representatives,  would  furnish 
matter  of  ample  discussion,  bull  pass  it  over  in  silence,  only  obser¬ 
ving  thatit  is  a  grand,  and  indeed  a  dating  fault,  and  on©  which  sanc¬ 
tions  with  security  the  most  tyrannic  edicts,  of  a  despotic  ruler. 
The  ambiguous  terms  in  which  all  rights  are  secured  to  the  people, 
and  the  clear  and  comprehensive  language  used,  when  power  is 
granted  to  congress,  also  affords  matter  for  suspicions  and  objec¬ 
tions,  out  the  able  manner  in  which,  my  very  worthy,  my  very  elo¬ 
quent,  and  truly  patriotic  friend  and  coadjutor,  whose  name  shall 
ever  be  hallowed  in  the  temple  of  liberty,  has  handled  this  subject, 
would  render  any  observations  from  me,  tedious  and  unnecessary. 

Permit  me  then  to  conclude  by  reminding  gentlemen  who  appeal 
to  history  to  prove  the  excellence  of  the  proposed  plan,  that  their 
mode  of  comparison  is  unjust— “  wealth  and  extent  of  territory,’’ 
says  the  great  Montesquieu,  “  have  a  relation  to  government,  and 
the  manners  and  customs  of  the  people  are  closely  connected  with 
it.”  The  same  system  of  policy  which  might  have  been  excellent 
in  the  governments  of  antiquity,  would  not  probably  suit  us  at 
the  present  day — the  question  therefore  which  should  be  agitated,  ia 
not  whether  the  proposed  constitution  is  better  or  worse  than  those 
which  have  from  time  to  time  existed,  but  whether  it  is  calculated 
to  secure  our  liberties  and  happiness  at  the  present  stage  of  the 
world. 

For  my  own  part,  after  an  impartial  investigation  of  it,  and  after 
a  close  attention,  and  candid  consideration  of  the  arguments  which 
have  been  used,  I  arn  impressed  with  an  opinion,  that  it  is  not — I. 
am  persuaded,  that  by  adoptingit,  and  then  proposing  amendments, 
that  unfortunate  traveller  liberty  is  more  endangered  than  the  union 
of  the  states  will  be  by  first  proposing  these  amendments.  I  am  so 
far  an  enthusiast  in  favor  of  liberty,  that  I  never  will  trust  the  sacred 
deposit  to  other  hands,  nor  will  1  exchange  it  for  any  earthly  con¬ 
sideration — and  I  have  such  a  fixed  aversion  to  the  bitter  cup  of 
slavery,  that  in  my  estimation  a  draught  is  not  sweetened,  whether 
administered  by  the  hand  of  a  Turk,  a  Briton,  or  anAmerican. 

Impressed  then,  sir,  with  theso  sentiments,  and  governed  by  these 
principles,  I  shall  decidedly  give  my  vote  in  favor  of  pieviou* 
amendments;  but,  sir,  should  the  question  be  decided  contrary  to  my 
wishes,  the  first  wish  of  my  heart  is,,  that  the  decision  may  promote 
the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  country  so  dear  to  us  all. 

Mr  GRAYSON. — Mr  Chairman,  gentlemen  have  misrepresented, 
what  I  said  on  the  subject  of  treaties *  On  this  ground  let  us  appeal 
to  the  law  of  nations.  How  does  it  stand?  Thus — that  without 
the  consent  of  the  national  legislature  dismemberment  cannot  be 
made.  This  is  a  subject  in?  which  Virginia  is  deeply  interested* 


554 


DEBATES. 


[Grayson. 


and  ought  to  be  well  understood.  It  ought  to  be  expressly  provided, 
that  no  dismemberment  should  take  place  without  the  consent  of  the 
legislature.  On  this  occasion  I  beg  leave  to  introduce  an  instance 
mentioned  on  the  floor  of  congress.  Francis,  king  of  France,  was 
taken  by  the  Spaniards  at  the  battle  of  Pavia.  He  stipulated  to 
give  up  certain  territories  to  be  liberated.  Yet  the  stipulation  was 
not  complied  with,  because  it  was  alledged  that  it  was  not  made  by 
the  sovereign  power.  Let  us  apply  this.  Congress  has  a  right  to 
dismember  the  empire.  The  president  may  do  it,  and  the  legislature 
may  confirm  it.  Let  gentlemen  contradict  it  if  they  can.  This  is 
one  of  the  highest  acts  of  sovereignty,  and  I  think  it  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  it  should  be  placed  on  a  proper  footing.  There  is 
an  absolute  necessity  for  the  existence  of  the  power.  It  may  pre¬ 
vent  the  annihilation  of  the  society  by  procuring  a  peace.  It  must 
be  lodged  somewhere.  The  opposition  wish  it  to  be  put  in  the 
hands  of  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  both  houses  of  congress. 
It  would  be  then  secure.  It  is  not  so  now. 

The  dangers  of  disunion  were  painted  in  strong  colours.  How  is 
the  fact!  It  is  this — that  if  Virginia  thinks  proper  to  insist  on  pre¬ 
vious  amendments,  joined  by  New-York  and  North  Carolina,  sho 
can  procure  what  amendments  she  pleases.  What  is  the  geogra¬ 
phical  position  of  these  states'?  New-York  commands  the  ocean. 
Virginia  and  North  Carolina  join  the  Spanish  dominions.  What 
would  be  the  situation  then  of  the  other  states'?  They  would  be 
topographically  separated,  though  politically  connected  with  one 
another.  There  would  be  no  communication  between  the  centre  and 
the  component  parts.  While  those  states  were  thus  separated,  of 
what  advantage  would  commercial  regulations  be  to  them?  Yet 
will  gentlemen  pretend  to  say  that  we  must  adopt  first,  and  then 
beg  for  amendments?  I  see  no  reason  in  it.  We  undervalue  our 
own  importance.  Consider  the  vast  consequence  and  importance 
of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  What  kind  of  connection  would 
the  rest  of  the  states  form?  They  v  onld  be  carrying  states,  without 
having  any  thing  to  carry.  They  could  have  no  communication 
with  the  other  southern  states.  I  therefore  insist,  that  if  you  are 
not  satisfied  with  the  paper  as  it  stands,  it  is  as  clear  to  me  as  that 
the  sun  shines,  that  by  joining  these  two  states,  you  may  command 
such  amendments  as  you  may  think  necessary  for  the  happiness  of 
the  people. 

The  late  convention  were  not  empowered  totally  to  alter  the  pre¬ 
sent  confederatiou.  The  idea  was  to  amend.  If  they  laid  before  us 
a  thing  quite  different,  we  are  not  bound  to  accept  it.  There  is  no¬ 
thing  dictatorial  in  refusing  it:  we  wish  to  remove  the  spirit  of 
party.  In  all  parts  of  the  world  there  is  a  reciprocity  in  contracts 


Gbatsoi?.]  VIRGINIA  55§ 

and  compacts.  If  one  man  makes  a  proposition  to  another,  is  he 
bound  to  accept  if? 

Six  or  seven  states  have  agreed  to  it.  As  it  is  not  their  interest 
to  stand  by  themaelves,  will  they  not  with  open  arms  receive  us? 
Tobacco  will  always  make  our  peace  with  them.  1  hope  then  that 
the  honorable  gentleman  will  find,  on  a  reconsideration,  that  we  are 
not  at  all  in  that  dangerous  situation  he  represented.  In  my  opinion, 
the  idea  of  subsequent  amendments  is  preposterous.  They  are 
words  without  meaning.  The  little  states  will  not  agree  to  an  alter¬ 
ation.  When  they  find  themselves  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
other  states  in  the  senate,  and  all  power  vested  in  them — the  execu¬ 
tive  mixed  with  the  legislative,  they  will  never  assent.  Why  are 
euch  extensive  powers  given  to  the  senate?  Because  the  little  states 
gained  their  point.  In  every  light  I  consider  subsequent  amend¬ 
ments  as  unwise  and  impolitic. 

Considering  the  situation  of  the  continent,  this  is  not  a  time  for 
changing  our  government.  I  do  not  think  we  stand  so  secure  with 
respect  to  other  nations  as  to  change  our  government.  The  nations 
of  Europe  look  with  watchful  eyes  on  us,  and  with  reason — for  the 
West  India  islands  depend  on  our  motions.  When  we  have  strength, 
importance  and  union,  they  will  have  reason  to  tremble  for  their 
islands.  Almost  all  the  governments  of  the  world  have  been  formed 
by  accident.  We  are  now  in  time  of  peace,  without  any  real  cause, 
changing  our  government.  We  ought  to  be  cool  and  temperate, 
and  not  act  like  the  people  of  Denmark,  who  gave  up  their  liberties, 
irt  a  transport  of  passion,  to  the  crown.  Let  us  therefore  be  cau¬ 
tious  and  deliberate  before  we  determine. 

WThat  is  the  situation  of  Virginia?  She  is  rich  when  her  resources 
are  compared  with  those  of  others.  Is  it  right  for  a  rich  nation  to 
consolidate  with  a  poor  one?  By  no  means.  It  was  right  for  Scot¬ 
land  to  unite  with  England,  as  experience  has  shewn.  Scotland 
only  pays  ^648, 000,  when  England  pays  four  shillings  in  the  pound, 
which  amounts  to  £2, 000, 000.  In  all  unions  where  a  rich  state  is 
joined  with  a  poor  one,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  rich  one  will  pay 
in  that  disproportion.  An  union  between  such  nations  ought  never 
to  take  place,  except  in  peculiar  circumstances,  and  on  very  parti¬ 
cular  conditions.  How  is  it  with  Virginia?  It  is  politic  for  her  to 
unite,  but  not  on  any  terms.  She  will  pay  more  than  her  natural 
proportion,  and  the  present  state  of  the  national  debt  renders  it  an 
object.  She  will  also  lose  her  importance.  She  is  now  put  in  the 
same  situation  as  a  state  forty  times  smaller. 

Does  she  gain  any  advantage  from  her  central  situation,  by  acced¬ 
ing  to  that  paper?  Within  ten  miles  of  Alexandria  the  centre  of  the 
states  is  said  to  be.  It  has  not  said  that  the  ten  miles  square  will 


556 


DEBATES. 


[Madisow  , 


be  there.  In  a  monarchy  the  seat  of  government  must  be  where  the 
monarch  pleases.  How  ought  it  to  be  in  a  republic  like  ours?  Now 
in  one  part,  and  at  another  time  in  another,  or  where  it  will  best  suit 
the  convenience  of  the  people.  Then  I  lay  it  down  as  a  political 
right,  that  the  seat  of  government  ought  to  be  fixed  by  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  so  as  to  suit  the  public  convenience. 

Has  Virginia  any  gain  from  her  riches  and  commerce?  What 
does  she  get  in  return?  I  can  see  what  she  gives  up,  which  is  im¬ 
mense.  The  little  states  gain  in  proportion  as  we  lose.  Every  dis¬ 
proportion  is  against  us.  If  the  effects  of  such  a  contrariety  of 
interests  be  happy,  it  must  be  extraordinary  and  wonderful.  From 
the  very  nature  of  the  paper,  one  part,  whose  interest  is  different 
from  the  other,  is  to  govern  it.  What  will  be  our  situation?  The 
northern  states  are  carrying  states.  We  are  considered  as  productive 
states.  They  will  consequently  carry  for  us.  Are  manufactures 
favorable  to  us?  If  they  reciprocate  the  act  of  Charles  the  Second, 
and  say  that  no  produce  of  America  will  be  carried  in  any  foreign 
bottom,  what  will  be  the  consequence?  This — that  all  the  produce 
of  the  southern  states  will  be  carried  by  the  northern  states  on  their 
own  terms,  which  must  be  very  high. 

Though  this  government  has  the  power  of  taxation  and  the  most 
important  subject  of  the  legislation,  there  is  no  responsibility  any 
where.  The  members  of  Delaware  do  not  return  to  Virginia  to  give 
an  account  of  their  conduct.  Yet  they  legislate  for  us.  In  addition 
to  this,  it  will  be  productive  of  great  expences.  Virginia  has  assu¬ 
med  an  immense  weight  of  private  debt,  and  her  imports  and  exports 
are  taken  away.  Judge  then  how  such  an  accumulation  of  expenses 
will  accommodate  us.  I  think  that  were  it  not  for  one  great  char¬ 
acter  in  America,  so  many  men  would  not  be  for  this  government 
We  have  one  ray  of  hope.  We  do  not  fear  while  he  lives  :  but  we 
can  only  expect  his  fame  to  be  immortal.  We  wish  to  know,  who 
besides  him,  can  concentrate  the  confidence  and  affections  of  all 
America  ? 

He  then  concluded  by  expressing  hopes  that  the  proposition  of 
his  honorable  friend  would  be  acceded  to. 

Mr  MADISON.— Mr  Uh  airman,  nothing  has  excited  more  admir¬ 
ation  in  the  world,  than  the  manner  in  which  free  governments  have 
been  established  in  America.  For  it  was  the  first  instance  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  to  the  American  revolution,  that  free  inhabitants 
have  been  seen  deliberating  on  a  form  of  government,  and  selecting 
such  of  their  citizens  as  possessed  their  confidence,  to  determine 
upon,  and  give  effect  to  it.  But  why  has  this  excited  so  much  wonder 
and  applause?  Because  it  is  of  so  much  magnitude,  and  because  it  is 
liable  to  be  frustrated  by  so  many  accidents.  If  it  has  excited 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


557 


so  much  wonder,  that  the  United  States  have  in  the  middle  of  war  and 
confusion,  formed  free  systems  of  government,  how  much  more  as¬ 
tonishment  and  admiration  will  be  excited,  should  they  be  able, 
peaceably,  freely  and  satisfactorily,  to  establish  one  general  govern* 
ment,  when  there  is  such  a  diversity  of opinions,  and  interests,  when 
not  cemented  or  stimulated  by  any  common  danger!  How  vast 
must  be  the  difficulty  of  concentrating  in  one  government,  the  inte¬ 
rests,  and  conciliating  the  opinions  of  so  many  different  heterogeneous 
bodies'? 

How  have  the  confederacies  of  ancient  and  modern  times  been 
formed!  As  far  as  ancient  history  describes  the  former  to  us,  they 
were  brought  about  by  the  wisdom  of  some  eminent  sage.  How 
was  the  imperfect  union  of  the  Swiss  Cantons  formed!  By  danger. 
How  was  the  confederacy  of  the  United  Netherlands  formed?  By 
the  same.  They  are  surrounded  by  dangers.  By  these  and  one  in¬ 
fluential  character,  they  were  stimulated  to  unite.  How  was  the 
Germanic  system  formed?  By  danger  in  some  degree,  but  principal¬ 
ly  by  the  overruling  influence  of  individuals. 

When  we  consider  this  government,  we  ought  to  make  great  al¬ 
lowances.  We  must  calculate  the  impossibility  that  every  state 
should  be  gratified  in  its  wishes,  and  much  less  that  every  individ¬ 
ual  should  receive  this  gratification.  It  has  never  been  denied  by 
the  friends  of  the  paper  on  the  table,  that  it  has  effects.  But  they 
do  not  think  that  it  contains  any  real  danger.  They  conceive  that 
they  will  in  all  probability  be  removed,  when  experience  will  shew 
it  to  be  necessary.  I  beg  that  gentleman  in  deliberating  on  this 
subject,  would  consider  the  alternative.  Either  nine  states  shall  have 
ratified  it  or  they  will  not.  If  nine  states  will  adopt  it,  can  it  be  rea¬ 
sonably  presumed  or  required,  that  nine  states  having  freely  and  ful¬ 
ly  considered  the  subject,  and  come  to  an  affirmative  decision,  will, 
upon  the  demand  of  a  single  state,  agree  that  they  acted  wrong,  and 
could  not  see  its  defect— tread  back  the  steps  which  they  have  taken 
and  come  forward  and  reduce  it  to  uncertainty,  whether  a  general 
system  shall  be  adopted  or  not?  Virginia  has  always  heretofore 
spoken  the  language  of  respect  to  the  other  states,  and  she  has  al¬ 
ways  been  attended  to.  Will  it  be  that  language,  to  call  on  a  great 
majority  of  the  states  to  acknowledge  that  they  have  done  wrong? 
It  is  the  lanfmao-e  of  confidence  to  say,  that  we  do  not  believe  that 
amendments  for  the  preservation  of  the  common  liberty  and  general 
interests  of  the  state,  will  he  consented  to  by  them?  This  is  neith¬ 
er  the  language  of  confidence  nor  respect.  Virginia  when  she  speaks 
respectfully,  will  be  as  much  attended  to,  as  she  has  hitherto  been 
when  speaking  this  language. 

It  is  a  most  awful  thing  that  depends  on  our  decision — no  less  than 


55S 


DEBATES. 


[Madison 


whether  the  thirteen  states  shall  unite  freely,  peaceably,  and  unani¬ 
mously,  for  security  of  their  common  happiness  and  liberty,  or  whe¬ 
ther  every  thing1  is  to  be  put  in  confusion  and  disorder.  Are  we  te 
embark  in  this  dangerous  enterprise,  uniting  various  opinions  to  con¬ 
trary  interests,  with  the  vain  hope  of  coming  to  an  amicable  concur¬ 
rence? 

It  is  worthy  of  our  consideration,  that  those  who  prepared  the  pa¬ 
per  on  the  table,  found  difficulties  not  to  be  described,  in  its  forma¬ 
tion — mutual  deferance  and  concession  were  absolutely  necessary. 
Had  they  been  inflexibly  tenacious  of  their  individual  opinions:  they 
would  never  have  concurred.  Under  what  circumstances  was  it 
formed?  When  no  party  was  formed,  or  particular  proposition 
made,  and  men’s  minds  were  calm  and  dispassionate.  Yet  under 
these  circumstances,  it  was  difficult,  extremely  difficult,  to  agree  to 
any  general  system. 

Suppose  eight  states  only  should  ratify,  and  Virginia  should  pro¬ 
pose  certain  alterations,  as  the  previous  condition  of  her  accession^ 
If  they  should  be  disposed  to  accede  to  her  proposition,  which  is 
the  most  favorable  conclusion,  the  difficulty  attending  it  will  be  im¬ 
mense.  Every  state,  which  has  decided  it,  must  take  up  the  sub¬ 
ject  again.  They  must  not  only  have  the  mortification  of  acknowl¬ 
edging  that  they  had  done  wrong,  but  the  difficulty  of  having  a  re¬ 
consideration  of  it  among  the  people,  and  appointing  new  conven¬ 
tions  to  deliberate  upon  it.  They  must  attend  to  all  the  amendments, 
which  may  be  dictated  by  as  great  a  diversity  of  political  opinions, 
as  there  are  local  attachments.  WThen  brought  together  in  one  as- 
sembiy,  they  must  go  through,  and  accede  to  every  one  of  the 
amendments.  The  gentlemen  who,  within  this  house,  have  thought 
proper  to  propose  previous  amendments,  have  brought  no  less  than 
forty  amendments— as  bill  of  rights  which  contains  twenty  amend¬ 
ments,  and  twenty  ether  alterations,  some  of  which  are  improper 
and  inadmissable.  W 1 ! I  not  every  state  think  herself  equally  enti¬ 
tled  to  propose  as  many  amendments'*  And  suppose  them  to  be 
contradictory,  I  lea,re  it  to  this  convention,  whether  it  be  probable 
that  they  can  agree,  or  agree  to  any  thing,  but  the  plan  on  the  ta¬ 
ble;  or  whether  greater  difficulties  will  not  be  encountered,  than 
were  experienced  in  the  progress  of  the  formation  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion. 

I  have  said  that  there  wa3  a  great  contrariety  of  opinions  among 
the  gentlemen  in  the  opposition.  It  has  been  heard  in  every  stage  of 
their  opposition.  I  can  sf  from  their  amendments,  that  very  great 
sacrifices  have  been  made  by  some  of  them.  Some  gentlemen  think 
that  it  contains  too  much  state  influence:  others,  that  it  is  a  complete 
consolidation,  and  a  variety  ol  other  things.  Some  of  them  think 


VIRGINIA. 


559 


Madison.] 

that  the  equality  in  the  senate,  if  not  a  defect;  others,  that  it  is  the 
bane  of  all  good  governments.  1  might,  if  there  were  time,  show  a 
variety  of  other  cases,  where  their  opinions  are  contradictory.  If 
there  be  this  contrariety  of  opinions  in  this  house,  what  contrariety 
may  not  be  expected,  when  we  take  into  view,  thirteen  conventions 
equally  or  more  numerous'?  Besides,  it  is  notorious  from  the  de¬ 
bates  which  have  been  published,  that  there  is  no  sort  of  uniformity 
in  the  grounds  of  the  opposition. 

The  state  of  New  York  han  been  adduced.  Many  in  that  state 
are  opposed  to  it  from  local  views.  The  two  who  opposed  it  in  the 
general  convention  from  that  state,  are  in  the  state  convention. 
Every  step  of  this  system  was  opposed  by  those  two  gentlemen. 
They  were  unwilling  to  part  with  the  old  confederation.  Can  it 
be  presumed  then,  sir,  that  gentlemen  in  this  state,  who  admit  the 
necessity  of  changing,  should  ever  be  able  to  unite  in  sentiments 
with  those  who  are  totally  averse  to  any  change. 

I  have  revolved  this  question  in  my  mind,  with  as  much  serious 
attention,  and  called  to  my  aid  as  much  information  as  I  could,  yet 
I  can  see  no  reason  for  the  apprehensions  of  gentlemen,  but  I  think 
that  and  if  Virginia  will  agree  to  ratify  this  system,  I  shall  look  upon 
it  the  most  happy  effects  forthis  country  would  result  from  adoption 
as  one  of  the  most  fortanate  events  that  ever  happened  for  human 
nature.  I  cannot,  therefore,  without,  the  most  excruciating  appre¬ 
hensions,  see  a  possibility  of  losing  its  blessings.  It  gives  me  infin¬ 
ite  pain  to  reflect,  that  all  the  earnest  endeavors  of  the  warmest  friends 
of  their  country,  to  introduce  a  system  promoti^e  of  our  happiness, 
may  be  blasted  by  a  rejection,  for  which  I  think  with  my  honorable 
friend,  that  previous  amendments  are  but  another  name.  The  gen¬ 
tlemen  in  opposition  seem  to  insist  on  those  amendments,  as  if  they 
were  all  necessary  for  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  people. 
Were  I  to  hazard  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  I  would  declare  it  infl- 
nitelv  more  safe  in  its  present  form,  than  it  would  be  after  introdu¬ 
cing  into  it  that  long  train  of  alterations,  which  they  call  amend¬ 
ments. 

With  respect  to  the  proposition  of  the  honorable  gentlemen  lo  my 
left  (Mr  Wythe)  gentlemen  apprehend,  that  by  enumerating  three 
rights,  it  implied  there  were  no  more.  The  observations  made  by  a 
gentleman  lately  up,  on  that  subject,  correspond  precisely  with  my 
opinion.  That  resolution  declares,  that  the  powers  granted  by  the 
proposed  constitution,  are  the  gift  of  the  people,  and  may  be  resumed 
bv  them  when  perverted  to  their  oppression,  and  every  power  not 
granted  thereby,  remains  with  the  people,  and  at  their  will.  It 
adds  likewise,  that  no  right  of  any  denomination,  can  be  cancelled, 
abridged,  restrained  or  modified,  by  the  general  government,  or  any 


560 


DEBATES. 


[Madisoh, 


of  its  officers,  except  in  those  instances  in  which  power  is  given  by 
the  constitution  for  these  purposes.  There  cannot  be  a  more  posi* 
tive  and  unequivocal  declaration  of  the  principles  of  the  adoption, 
that  every  thing  not  granted,  is  reserved.  This  is  obviously  and 
self-evidently  the  case,  without  the  declaration. — Can  the  general 
government  exercise  anv  power  not  delegated?  If  an  enumeration 
be  made  of  our  rights,  will  it  not  be  implied,  that  every  thing  omit¬ 
ted,  is  given  to  the  general  government?  Has  not  the  honorable 
gentleman  himself,  admitted,  that  an  imperfect  enumeration  is  dan¬ 
gerous?  Does  the  constitution  say  that  they  shall  not  alter  the  law 
of  descents,  or  do  those  things  which  would  subvert  the  whole  sys- 
tern  of  the  state  laws?  If  he  did,  what  was  not  excepted,  would 
be  granted.  Does  it  follow  from  the  omission  of  such  restrictions, 
that  they  can  exercise  powers  not  delegated?  The  reveise  of  the 
proposition  holds.  The  delegation  alone  warrants  the  exercise  of 
any  power, 

With  respect  to  the  amendments ,  proposed  by  the  honorable  gen¬ 
tleman,  it  ought  to  be  considered  how  far  they  are  good.  As  far  as 
they  are  palpably  and  insuperably  objectionable,  they  oughUo  be  op¬ 
posed.  One  amendment  he  proposes  is,  that  any  army  which  shall 
be  necessary,  shall  be  raised  by  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the 
•states.  I  most  devoutly  wish,  that  there  may  never  be  an  occasion 
or  having  a  single  regiment.  There  can  be'no  harm  in  declaring,  that 
standing  armies  in  time  of  peace,  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and 
ought  to'be  avoided,  as  far  as  it  may  be  consistent  with  the  protection 
of  the  community.  But  when  we  come  to  say,  that  the  national  se¬ 
curity  shall  depend  noton  a  majojity  of  the  people  of  America,  but 
■that  it  may  be  frustrated  by  less  than  one-third  of  the  people  of 
America.  I  ask  if  this  be  a  safe  or  proper  mode?  What  part  of  the 
United  States  are  most  likely  to  stand  in  need  of  this  protection? 
The  weak  parts,  which  are  the  southern  states,  Will  it  be  safe  to 
leave  the  United  States  at  the  mercy  of  one-third  of  the  states,  a 
number,  which  may  comprise  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  Arnerb 
■can  people?  They  may  all  be  in  that  part  of  America  which  is  least 
exposed  to  danger.  As  far  as  a  remote  situation  from  danger,  would 
render  exertions  for  public  defence  less  active,  so  far  the  south¬ 
ern  states  would  be  endangered. 

The  regulation  of  commerce ,  he  further  proposed,  should  depend 
•on  two-lhirds  of  both  houses.  I  wish  I  could  recollect,  the  history 
of  this  matter;  but  I  cannot  call  it  to  mind  with  sufficient  exactness. 
But  I  well  recollect  the  reasoning  of  some  gentlemen* on  that  sub¬ 
ject.  It  was  said,  and  I  believe  with  truth,  that  every  part  of  Amer* 
ica,  does  not  stand  in  equal  need  of  security.  It  was  observed,  that 
ihe  northern  states  were  most  competent  to  their  own  safety.  W7as 


Hadison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


561 


<t  reasonable,  asked  they,  that  they  should  bind  themselves  to  the 
defence  of  the  southern  states,  and  still  be  left  at  the  mercy  of  the 
minority  for  commercial  advantages'?  Should  it  be  in  the  power  of 
the  minority  to  deprive  them  of  this  and  other  advantages,  when 
they  were  bound  to  defend  the  whole  union,  it  might  be  a  disadvan¬ 
tage  for  them  to  confederate. 

these  were  his  arguments.  This  policy  of  guarding  against  po¬ 
litical  inconveniences,  by  enabling  a  small  part  of  the  community 
to  oppose  the  government,  and  subjecting  the  majority  to  a  small 
minority  is  fallacious.  In  some  cases  it  may  be  good;  in  others  it 
may  be  fatal.  In  all  cases  it  puts  it  in  the  power  of  the  minority  to 
decide  a  question  which  concerns  the  majority. 

I  was  struck  with  surprise  when  I  heard  him  express  himself 
alarmed  with  respect  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves.  Let  me  ask,  if 
they  should  even  attempt  it,  if  it  will  not  be  an  usurpation  of  power? 
There  is  no  power  to  warrant  it,  in  that  paper.  If  there  be,  I  know 
it  not.  But  why  should  it  be  done?  Says  the  honorable  gentlemen, 
for  the  general  welfare — it  will  infuse  strength  into  our  system.  Gan 
any  member  of  this  committee  suppose,  that  it  will  increase  our 
strength?  Can  any  one  believe,  that  the  American  councils  will 
come  into  a  measure  which  will  strip  them  of  their  property,  dis¬ 
courage,  and  alienate  the  affections  of  five-thirteenths  of  the  union. 

>  Why  was  nothing  of  this  sort  aimed  at  before?  I  believe  such  an 
idea  never  entered  into  any  American  breast,  nor  do  1  believe  it  ever 
will  enter  into  the  heads  of  those  gentlemen  who  substitute  unsup¬ 
ported  suspicions  for  reasons. 

1  am  persuaded  that  the  gentlemen  who  contend  for  previous 
amendments  are  not  aware  of  the  dangers  which  must  result.  Vir¬ 
ginia,  after  having  made  opposition,  will'  be  obliged  to  recede  from 
it.  Might  not  the  nine  states  say  with  a  great  deal  of  propriety — . 

It  is  not  proper,  decent,  or  right  in  you,  to  demand  that  we  should 
reverse  what  we  have  done.  D-o  as  we  have  done — place  confidence 
ib  us,  as  we  have  done  in  one  another — and  then  we  shall  freely, 
fairlyand  dispassionately  consider  and  investigate  your  propositions, 
aftd  endeavour  to  gratify  your  wishes;  but  if  you  do  mot  do  this,  it 
more  reasonable  that  you  should  yield  to  us,  than  we  to  you. 
You  cannot  exist  without  us — you  must  be  a  member  of  the  union.” 

The  case  of  Maryland,  instanced  by  the  gentleman,  does  not  hold. 
She  would  not  agree  to  confederate,  because  the  other  states  would 
not  assent  to  her  claims  of  the  western  lands.  Was  she  gratified? 
No — she  put  herself  like  the  rest.  Nor  has  she  since  been  gratified. 
The  lands  are  in  the  common  stock  of  the  union. 

As  far  as  his  amendments  are  not  objectionable,  or  unsafe,  so  far 
they  may  be  subsequently  recommended.  Not  becaus-e  they  are 

vol.  3  36 


m  DEBATES.  [Hekbt. 

necessary,  bat  because  they  can  produce  no  possible  danger,  and* 
may  gratify  some  gentlemen’s  wishes.  But  I  never  can  consent  to 
his  previous  amendments,  because  they  are  pregnant  with  dreadful 
dangers. 

Mr  HENRY. — Mr.  Chairman,  the  honorable  gentleman  who  was 
up  6ome  time  ago,  exhorts  us  not  to  fall  into  a  repetition  of  the  de¬ 
fects  of  the  confederation.  He  said  we  ought  not  to  declare  that 
each  state  retains  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not 
expressly  delegated,  because  experience  has  proved  the  insertion  of 
such  a  restriction  to  be  destructive,  and  menlioned  an  instance  t<^ 
prove  it.  That  case,  Mr  Chairman,  appears  to  me  to  militate  against 
himself.  Passports  would  not  be  given  by  congress — and  why? 
Because  there  was  a  clause  in  the  confederation  which  denied  them 
implied  powers.  And,  says  he,  shall  we  repeat  the  error?  Ho 
asked  me  where  was  the  power  of  emancipating  slaves?  I  say  it 
will  be  implied,  unless  implication  be  prohibited.  He  admits,  that 
the  power  of  granting  passports  will  be  in  the  new  congress  without 
the  insertion  of  this  restriction — yet  he  can  show  me  nothing  lUrer 
tuch  a  power  granted  in  that  constitution;  Notwithstanding  he  ad- 
mits  their  right  to  this  power  by  implication,  he  says  that  I  am  un¬ 
fair  and  uncandid  in  my  deduction,  that  they  can  emancipate  our 
slaves,  though  the  word  emancipation  is  not  mentioned  in  it.  They 
can  exercise  power  by  implication  in  one  instance,  as  well  as  is 
another.  Thus  by  the  gentleman’s  own  argument,  they  can  exercise 
the  power  though  it  be  not  delegated. 

We  were  then  told  that  the  power  of  treaties  and  commerce  was 
the  sine  qua  non  of  the  union.  That  the  little  states  would  not  con¬ 
federate  otherwise.  There  is  a  thing  not  present  to  human  view. 
We  have  seen  great  concessions  from  the  large  states  to  the  little 
states.  But  little  concession  from  the  little  states  to  the  great  states 
will  be  refused.  He  concedes  that  great  concessions  were  made  in 
the  greatxonvention,  Now  when  we  speak  of  rights,  and  not  of 
emoluments,  these  little  states  would  not  have  been  affected.  What 
boon  did  we  ask?  We  demanded  only  rights,  which  ought  to  be 
unalienable  and  sacred.  We  have  nothing  local  to  ask.  We  ask 
rights  which  concern  the  general  happiness.  Must  not  justice  brings 
them  into  the  concession  of  these?  The  honorable  gentleman  waw 
pleased  to  say,  that  the  new  government  in  this  police  will  be  equals 
to  what  the  present  is.  If  so,  that  amendment  will  not  injure  that 
part. 

He  then  mentioned  the  danger  that  would  arise  from  foreign  gold. 
We  may  be  bribed  by  foreign  powers  if  we  ask  for  amendments,  to 
secure  our  own  happiness.  Are  we  to  be  bribed  to  forget  our  owe 
interests'?  1  will  ask  if  foreign  gold  be  likely  to  operate,  where,  will 


SIemut*] 


VIRGINIA. 


563 


n  be?  la  the  seat  of  government,  or  in  those  little  channels  in  which 
the  state  authority  will  flow?  It  will  be  at  the  fountain  of  power, 
where  bribery  will  not  be  detected.  He  speaks  of  war  and  blood¬ 
shed.  Whence  do  this  war  and  bloodshed  come?  I  fear  it,  but  not 
from  the  source  he  speaks  of.  I  fear  it,  sir,  from  the  operation  and 
friends  of  the  federal  government.  He  speaks  with  contempt  of  this 
amendment.  But  whoever  will  advert  to  the  use  made  repeatedly 
England  of  tho  prerogative  of  the  king,  and  the  frequent  attacks 
on  the  privileges  of  the  people,  notwithstanding  many  legislative 
acta  to  secure  them,  will  see  the  necessity  of  excluding  implication. 

Nations  who  have  trusted  to  logical  deduction  have  lost  their 
liberty. 

The  honorable  gentleman  last  up,  agrees  that  there  are  defects, 
and  by  and  by,  he  says,  there  is  no  defect.  Does  not  this  amount 
-to  a  declaration  that  subsequent  amendments  are  not  necessary? 
His  arguments,  great  as  the  gentleman’s  abilities  are,  tend  to  prove 
that  amendments  cannot  be  obtained  after  adoption.  Speaking  of 
forty  amendments,  he  calculated  that  it  was  something  like  imprao* 
iicability  to  obtain  them.  I  appeal  therefore  to  the  candour  of  the 
honorable  gentleman,  and  this  committee,  whether  amendments  be 
not  absolutely  unattainable,  if  we  adopt.  For  he  has  told  us,  that 
if  the  other  states  will  do  like  this  they  cannot  be  previously  ob,» 
tained.  Will  the  gentleman  bring  this  home  to  himself?  Thi3  is 
a  piece  of  information  which  I  expected.  The  worthy  member  who 
proposed  to  ratify  has  also  proposed  that  what  amendments  may  be 
deemed  necessary,  should  be  recommended  to  congress,  and  that  ft 
committee  should  be  appointed  to  consider  what  amendments  were 
necessary.  But  what  does  it  all  come  to  at  last?  That  it  is  a  vain 
project,  and  that  it  is  indecent  and  improper.  I  will  not  argue  un¬ 
fairly,  but  1  will  ask  him  if  amendments  are  not  unattainable? 
Will  gentlemen  then  lay  their  hands  on  their  hearts,  and  say  that 
they  can  adopt  it  in  this  shape?  When  we  demand  this  Security  of 
our  privileges,  the  language  .of  Virginia  is  not  that  of  respect.  Give 
me  leave  to  deny.  She  only  asks  amendments  previous  to  her  aflop* 
Ttion  of  the  constitution. 

Was  the  honorable  gentleman  accurate,  when  he  said  that  they 
(*could  exist  better  without  us  than  we  could  without  them?  I  will 
make  no  comparison.  But  I  will  say  that  the  states  which  have 
adopted  will  not  make  a  respectable  appearance  without  us.  Would 
he  advise  them  to  refuse  them  admission  when  we  profess  ourselves 
friends  to  the  union,  and  only  solicit  them  to  secure  our  rights7 
We  do  not  reject  a  connexion  with  them.  We  only  declare  that 
will  adopt  it,  if  they  will  but  consent  to  the  security  of  rights  essera* 
*ial  to  the  general  happiness. 


584 


DEBATES. 


ffleN&r. 


He  told  you  to  confine  yourselves  to  amendments  which  were  in  ¬ 
disputably  true,  as  applying  to  several  parts  of  the  system  proposed,. 
Did  you  hear  any  thing  like  the  admission  of  the  want  of  such 
amendments  from  any  one  else1?  I  will  not  insist  on  any  that  does 
not  stand  on  the  broad  basis  of  human  rights.  He  says  there  are 
forty.  I  say  there  is  but  one  half  the  number,  for  the  bill  of  rights 
is  but  one  amendment. 

He  tells  you  of  important  blessings  which  he  imagines  will  re¬ 
sult  to  us  and  mankind  in  general,  from  the  adoption  of  this  system, 

I  see  the  awful  immensity  of  the  dangers  with  which  it  is  pregnant. 

I  see  it.  I  feel  it.  I  see  beings  of  a  higher  order  anxious  concern¬ 
ing  our  decision.  When  I  see  beyond  the  horizon  that  binds  human, 
eyes,  and  look  at  the  final  consummation  of  all  human  things,  and 
see  those  intelligent  beings  which  inhabit  the  aetherial  mansions,  re¬ 
viewing  the  political  decisions  and  revolutions  which  in  the  pro¬ 
gress  of  time  will  happen  in  America,  and  the  consequent  happiness 
or  misery  of  mankind,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  much  of  the  account 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  will  depend  on  what  we  now  decide.  Our 
own  happiness  alone  is  not  affected  by  the  event.  All  nations  are 
interested  in  the  determination.  We  have  it  in  ourpower  to  secure 
the  happiness  of  one  half  of  the  human  race.  Its  adoption  may  in¬ 
volve  the  misery  of  the  other  hemispheres. 

(Here  a  violent  storm  arose,  -which  put  the  house  in  such  disor¬ 
der,  that  Mr.  Henry  was  obliged  to  conclude. 

Mr  NICHOLAS  proposed  that  the  question  should  bo  put  at  nine- 
o’clock  next  day. 

He  was  opposed  by  Mr  CLAY. 

Mr  RONALD  also  opposed  the  motion,  and  wished  amendments 
to  be  prepared  by  a  committee,  before  the  question  should  be  put, 

Mr  NICHOLAS  contended  that  the  language  of  the  proposed 
ratification,  would  secure  every  thing  which  gentlemen  desired,  as  it 
declared  tl4at  all  powers  vested  in  the  constitution  was  derived  from 
the  people,  and  might  be  resumed  by  them  whensoever  they  should 
be  perverted  to  their  injury  and  oppression;  and  that  every  power 
not  granted  thereby,  remained  at  their  will,  no  danger  whatever 
could  arise.  For,  says  he,  these  expressions  will  become  a  part  of 
the  contract.  The  constitution  cannot  be  binding  on  Virginia,  but 
with  these  conditions,  if  thirteen  individuals  are  about  to  make  a 
contract,  and  one  agrees  to  it,  but. at  the  same  time  declares  that  he 
understands  its  meaning,  signification,  and  intent,  to  be,  what  the 
words  of  the  contract  plainly  and  obviously  denote,  that  it  is  not  to 
be  construed  so  as  to  impose  any  s  npplementary  condition  upon  him 
and  that  he  is  to  be  exonerated  from  it,  whensoever  any  such  impo¬ 
sition  shall  be  attempted — I  ask  whether  in  this  caso  these  eondi- 


VIRGINIA. 


565 


RtWALD.) 

ions  on  which  he  assented  to,  would  not  be  binding  on  the  other 
twelve]  In  like  manner  these  conditions  will  be  binding  on  con- 

_  o 

gress.  They  can  exercise  no  power  that  is  not  expressly  granted 
them. 

Mr  RONALD. — Mr  Chairman,  I  came  hither  with  a  determina¬ 
tion  to  give  my  vote  so  as  to  secure  the  liberty  and  privileges  of  my 
constituents.  I  thought  that  a  great  majority  argued  that  amend¬ 
ments  were  necessary.  Such  is  my  opinion,  but  whether  they  ought 
to  be  previous  or  subsequent  to  our  adoption,  I  leave  to  the  wisdom 
of  this  committee  to  determine,  I  feel  an  earnest  desire  to  know 
what  amendments  shall  be  proposed,  before  the  question  be  put. 
One  honorable  gentleman  has  proposed  several  amendments.  They 
are  objected  to  by  other  gentlemen.  I  do  not  declare  myself  for  or 
against  those  amendments;  but  unless  I  see  such  amendments,  one 
way  or  the  other,  introduced,  as  will  secure  the  happiness  of  the 
people  and  prevent  their  privileges  from  being  endangered,  I  must 
though  much  against  my  inclination,  vote  against  this  constitution. 

Mr  MADISON  conceived  that  what  defects  might  be  in  the  con¬ 
stitution  might  be  removed  by  the  amendatory  mode  in  itself.  As 
to  a  solemn  declaration  of  our  essential  rights,  he  thought  it  unne¬ 
cessary  and  dangerous. — Unnecessary,  because  it  was  evident  that 
the  general  government  had  no  power  but  what  was  given  it,  and 
that  the  delegation  alone  warranted  the  exercise  of  power. — Dan¬ 
gerous,  because  an  enumeration  which  is  not  complete,  is  not  safe. 
Such  an  enumeration  could  not  be  made  within  any  compass  of 
time,  as  would  be  equal  to  a  general  negation,  such  as  his  honorable 
friend  (Mr  Wythe)  had  proposed.  He  declared  that  such  amend¬ 
ments  as  seemed  in  his  judgment,  to  be  without  danger,  he  would 
readily  admit,  and  that  he  would  be  the  last  to  oppose  any  such 
amendment  as  would  give  satisfaction  to  any  gentleman,  unless  it 
were  dangerous. 

Wednesday  the  25th  of  June,  1788. 

Mr  NICHOLAS. — Mr  Chairman,  I  do  not  mean  to  enter  into  any 
further  debate.  The  friends  of  the  constitution  wish  to  take  up  more 
time,  the  matter  being  more  fully  discussed.  They  are  convinced 
that  further  time  will  answer  to  no  end  but  to  serve  the  cause  of 
those  who  wish  to  destroy  the  constitution.  We  wish  it  to  be  rati¬ 
fied,  and  such  amendments  as  may  be  thought  necessary,  to  be  sub¬ 
sequently  considered  by  a  committee,  in  order  to  be  recommended  to 
congress,  to  be  acted  upon  according  to  the  amendatory  mode  pre¬ 
sented  in  itself.  Gentlemen,  in  the  opposition,  have  said  that  the 
friends  of  the  constitution  would  depart  after  the  adoption,  without 
entering  into  any  consideration  of  subsequent  amendments.  I  wish  to 
know  their  authority.  I  wish  for  subsequent  amendments  as  a  friend 


DEBATES. 


555 


[Habbibot. 


to  the  constitution— I  trust  its  other  friends  wish  so  too — and  I  be¬ 
lieve  no  gentleman  has  any  intention  of  departing.  The  amendments 
contained  in  this  paper,  are  those  vve  wish.  But  we  shall  agree  to 
any  others  which  will  not  destroy  the  spirit  of  the  constitution,  or 
that  will  better  secure  liberty. 

He  then  moved  that  the  clerk  should  read  the  resolution  proposed: 
by  Mr  Wythe,  in  order  that  the  question  might  be  put  upon  it 
Which  being  done — Mr  Tyler  moved  to  read  the  amendments  and 
bill  of  rights  proposed  by  Mr  Henry,  for  the  same  purpose. 

Mr  HARRISON. — Mr  Chairman,  the  little  states  refused  to  come 
into  the  union  without  extravagant  concessions.  It  will  be  the 
same  case  on  every  other  occasion.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  the 
little  states  whose  interest  and  importance  are  greatly  advanced  by 
the  constitution  as  it  now  stands,  will  ever  agree  to  any  alteration, 
which  must  infallibly  diminish  their  political  influence?  On  this 
occasion  let  us  behave  with  that  fortitude  which  animated  us  in  our 
resistance  to  Great  Britain. 

The  situation  and  disposition  of  the  states  render  subsequent 
amendments  dangerous  and  impolitic,  and  previous  amendments 
eligible. 

New  Hampshire  does  not  approve  of  the  constitution  as  it  stands. 

They  have  refused  it  so.  In  Massachusetts  we  are  told  that  there 
was  a  decided  majority  in  their  convention  who  opposed  the  consti¬ 
tution  as  it  stood,  and  were  in  fav  or  of  previous  amendments,  but 
were  afterwards,  by  the  address  and  artifice  of  the  federalists,  pre¬ 
vailed  upon  to  ratify  it. 

Rhode  Island  is  not  worthy  the  attention  of  this  house.  She  is 
of  no  weight  or  importance  to  influence  any  general  subject  of  con¬ 
sequence. 

Connecticut  adopted  it,  without  proposing  amendments. 

New  York ,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  will  reject  the  con¬ 
stitution,  unless  amendments  be  obtained.  Hence  it  clearly  appears 
that  there  are  three  states  which  wish  for  amendments. 

Jersey ,  Pennsylvania ,  and  Delaware ,  have  adopted  in  uncondi¬ 
tionally. 

In  Maryland  there  is  a  considerable  number  who  wish  amend¬ 
ments  to  be  had. 

Virginia  is  divided,  let  this  question  be  determined  which  way  it 
will.  One  half  of  the  people,  at  least,  wish  amendments  to  be  ob¬ 
tained. 

North  Carolina  is  decidedly  against  it.  South  Carolina  has  pro¬ 
posed  amendments. 

Under  thi3  representation  it  appears  that  there  are  seven  states 
who  wish  to  get  amendments.  Can  it  be  doubted,  if  the  seven 


HaERK80».]1 


VIRGINIA. 


m 


states  insert  amendments  as  the  condition  of  their  accession)  that 
they  would  not  be  agreed  to?  Let  us  not  then  be  persuaded  into  an 
opinion,  that  the  union  will  be  dissolved  if  we  should  reject  it?  I 
I  have  no  such  idea. 

As  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  history,  there  never  existed  a  ©on- 
etitution  where  the  liberty  of  the  people  was  established  this  way; 
states  have  risen  by  gradual  steps—let  us  follow  their  example. 
The  line  which  we  ought  to  pursue  is  equally  bounded.  How  comes 
that  paper  on  your  table,  to  be  now  here  discussed?  The  state  of 
Virginia  finding  the  power  of  the  confederation  insufficient  for  the 
happiness  of  the  people,  invited  the  other  states  to  call  a  conven¬ 
tion,  in  order  that  the  powers  of  congress  might  be  enlarged.  I 
was  not  in  the  assembly  then,  and  if  I  had,  I  have  no  vanity  to  sup¬ 
pose  I  could  have  decided  more  cautiously.  They  were  bound  to 
do,  what  we  ought  to  do  now.  I  have  no  idea  of  danger  to  the  union. 
A  vast  majority  from  every  calculation  are  invincibly  attached  to  it 
I  see  an  earnest  desire  in  gentlemen  to  bring  this  country  to  be  great 
and  powerful.  Considering  the  very  late  period  when  this  country 
was  first  settled,  and  the  present  state  of  population  and  wealth, 
this  is  impossible  now.  The  attempt  will  bring  ruin  and  destruc¬ 
tion  upon  us.  These  things  must  not  be  forced.  They  must  come 
of  course,  like  the  course  of  rivers,  gently  going  on.  As  to  the  in¬ 
conveniences  to  me  from  adoption,  they  are  none  at  all.  1  am  not 
prejudiced  against  New  England  or  any  part.  They  are  held  up 
to  us  as  a  people  from  whom  protection  will  come.  Will  any  pro¬ 
tection  come  from  thence  for  many  years?  When  we  were  invaded, 
did  any  gentlemen  from  the  northern  states  come  to  relieve  us?  No, 
sir,  we  were  left  to  be  buffetted.  General  Washington,  in  the  great¬ 
ness  of  his  soul,  came  with  the  French  auxiliaries  and  relieved  us 
opportunely. — Were  it  not  for  this  we  should  have  been  ruined.  I 
call  heaven  to  witness  that  I  am  a  friend  to  the  union.  But  I  con¬ 
ceive  the  measure  of  adoption  to  be  unwarrantable,  precipitate,  and 
dangerously  impolitic — Should  we  rush  into  sudden  perdition,  I 
should  resist  with  the  fortitude  of  a  man.  A3  to  the  amendments 
proposed  by  gentlemen,  Ido  not  object  to  them — they  are  inherent¬ 
ly  good.  But  they  are  put  in  the  wrong  place — subsequent  instead 
of  previous.  Mr  Harrison  added  other  observations  which  could 
not  be  heard. 

Mr  MADISON.-- -Mr  Chairman,  I  should  not  have  risen  at  all, 
were  it  not  for  what  the  honorable  gentleman  said.  If  there  be  any 
suspicions,  that  if  the  ratification  be  made,  the  friends  of  the  system 
will  withdraw  their  concurrence,  and  much  more,  their  persons,  it 
shall  never  be  with  my  approbation.  Permit  me  to  remark,  that  if 
he  has  given  us  a  true  state  of  the  disposition  of  the  several  mem- 


m 


DEBATES. 


[Monuo&. 


bers  of  the  union,  there  is  no  doubt  they  will  agTee  to  the  same 
amendments  after  adoption.  If  we  propose  the  conditional  amend¬ 
ments,  I  entreat  gentlemen  to  consider  the  distance  to  which  they 
throw  the  ultimate  settlement,  and  the  extreme  risk  of  perpetual  dis¬ 
union.  They  cannot  but  see  how  easy  it  will  be  to  obtain  subse¬ 
quent  amendments.  They  can  be  proposed  when  the  legislatures  of 
two-thirds  of  the  states  shall  make  application  for  that  purpose,  and 
the  legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  states  or  conventions  in  the 
same,  can  fix  the  amendments  so  proposed.  If  there  be  an  equal 
zeal  in  every  state,  can  there  be  a  doubt  that  they  will  concur  in  rea¬ 
sonable  amendments?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  call  on  the  states 
to  rescind  what  they  have  done,  and  confess  that  they  have  done 
wrong,  and  to  consider  the  subject  again,  it  will  produce  such  un¬ 
necessary  delays,  and  is  pregnant  with  such  infinite  dangers,  that  I 
cannot  contemplate  it,  without  horror.  There  are  uncertainty  and 
confusion  on  the  one  hand,  and  order,  tranquility,  and  certainty  on 
the  other.  Let  us  not  hesitate  to  elect  the  latter  alternative.  Let 
us  join  with  cordiality  in  those  alterations  wTe  think  proper.  There 
is  no  friend  to  the  constitution,  but  who  will  concur  in  that  mode. 

Mr  MONROE,  after  an  exordium  which  could  not  be  heard,  re¬ 
marking  that  the  question  now  before  the  committee  was,  whether 
previous  or  subsequent  amendments  were  the  most  prudent — strong¬ 
ly  supported  the  former.  He  could  not  conceive  that  a  conditional 
ratification  would  in  the  most  remote  degree  endanger  the  union, 
for  that  it  was  as  clearly  the  interest  of  the  adopting  states  to  be 
united  with  Virginia,  as  it  could  be  her  interest  to  be  in  union  with 
them.  He  demanded  if  they  would  arm  the  states  against  one  another 
and  make  themselves  enemies  of  those  who  were  respectable  and 
powerful  from  their  situation  and  numbers?  He  had  no  doubt  that 
they  would  in  preference  to  such  a  desperate  and  violent  measure, 
come  forward  and  make  a  proposition  to  the  other  states,  so  far  as  it 
would  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest. — Adopt  it  now,  uncon¬ 
ditionally,  says  he,  and  it  will  never  be  amended,  net  even  when  ex¬ 
perience  shall  have  proved  its  defects.  An  alteration  will  be  a 
dimunition  of  their  power,  and  there  will  be  great  exertions  made  to 
prevent  it.  I  have  no  dread  that  they  will  immediately  infringe  the 
dearest  rights  of  the  people,  but  that  the  operation  of  the  government 
will  be  oppressive,  in  process  of  time.  Shall  we  not  pursue  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  common  sense  and  the  example  of  all  free  and  wise  nations, 
and  insist  on  amendments  with  manly  fortitude? 

It  is  urged  that  there  is  an  impossibility  of  getting  previous 
amendments,  and  that  a  variety  of  circumstances  concur  to  render 
it  impracticable.  This  argument  appears  to  me  fallacious,  and  as 
a  specious  evasion.  The  same  cause  which  has  hitherto  produced 


Innks.] 


VIRGINIA. 


66$ 


a  spirit  of  unanimity,  and  a  predilection  for  the  union,  will  hereafter 
prodace  the  some  effects. 

How  did  the  federal  convention  meet?  From  the  beginning  of  time 
xn  any  age  or  county,  did  ever  men  meet  under  so  loose,  uncurbed 
a  commission?  There  was  nothing  to  restrain  them  but  their  cha¬ 
racters  and  reputation.  They  could  not  organize  a  system  without 
defects.  This  cannot  then  be  perfect.  Is  it  not  presumeable  that 
by  subsequent  attempts  we  shall  make  it  more  complete  and  perfect? 

What  are  the  great  objections  now  made?  Are  they  local?  What 
are  the  amendments  brought  forth  by  my  friends?  Do  they  not  con¬ 
template  the  great  interests  of  the  people,  and  of  the  union  at  large? 
I  am  satisfied  from  what  we  have  seen  of  the  disposition  of  the  other 
states,  that  instead  of  disunion  and  national  confusion,  there  will  be 
harmony  and  perfect  concord.  Disunion  is  more  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  adoption  of  a  system  reprobated  by  some,  and  allowed  by 
all,  to  be  defective.  The  arguments  of  gentlemen  have  no  weight  on 
ray  mind.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  the  refutation  of  them. 
My  honorable  friends  have  done  it  highly  to  my  satisfaction.  Per¬ 
mit  me  only  to  observe,  with  respect  to  those  amendments,  that  they 
-are  harmless.  Do  they  change  a  feature  of  the  constitution?  They 
secure  our  rights  without  altering  a  single  feature.  I  trust  there¬ 
fore  that  gentlemen  will  concur  with  them. 

Mr  INNES. — Mr  Chairman,  I  have  hitherto  been  silent  on  this 
great  and  interesting  question.  But  my  silence  has  not  proceeded 
from  a  neutrality  of  sentiments,  or  a  supineness  of  disposition. 
The  session  of  the  court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  at  this  time,  has 
indispensably  called  my  attention  to  the  prosecutions  for  the  com¬ 
monwealth.  Had  I  taken  an  earlier  part  in  the  discussion,  my  ob¬ 
servations  would  have  been  desultory  and  perhaps  not  satisfactory, 
being  not  apprised  of  all  the  arguments  which  had  been  used  by 
gentlemen.  We  are  now  brought  to  that  great  part  of  the  system 
where  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  take  a  decided  part.  This  is  one 
of  the  most  important  questions  that  ever  agitated  the  councils  of 
America.  When  I  see  in  this  house,  divided  in  opinion,  several  of 
those  brave  officers,  whom  I  have  seen  so  gallantly  fighting  and 
bleeding  for  their  country,  the  question  is  doubly  interesting  to  me. 

!  thought  it  would  be  the  last  of  human  events,  that  I  should  be  on 
a  different  side  from  them,  on  so  awful  an  occasion.  However 
painful  and  distressing  to  me,  the  recollection  of  this  diversity  of 
sentiments  may  be,  1  am  consoled  by  this  reflection — that  difference 
of  opinion  has  a  happy  consequence — it  aids  discussion,  and  is  a 
friend  to  truth.  We  ought  (and  I  hope  we  have  the  temper)  to  be 
regulated  by  candor  and  moderation,  without  which,  in  a  delibera- 


*7t>  DEBATES.  [Inin*. 

tive  body,  every  thing  with  respect  to  the  public  good  evaporates 
into  nothing. 

I  came  hither  under  a  persuasion  that  the  felicity  of  our  country 
required  that  we  should  accede  to  this  system;  but  I  am  free  to  de¬ 
clare,  that  1  came  in  with  my  mind  open  to  conviction,  and  a  pre¬ 
determination  to  recede  from  my  opinion,  if  I  should  find  it  to  be 
erroneous.  I  have  heard  nothing  hitherto  that  would  warrant  a 
change  of  one  idea.  The  objections  urged  by  the  advocates  of  the 
opposition  have  been  ably,  and,  in  my  conception,  satisfactorily 
answered  by  the  friends  of  the  constitution.  I  wish,  instead  of 
reasoning  from  possible  abuses,  that  the  government  had  been  con¬ 
sidered  as  an  abstract  position  drawn  from  the  history  of  all  na¬ 
tions,  and  such  theoretic  opinions  as  experience  has  demonstrated 
to  be  right.  I  have  waited  to  hear  this  mode  of  reasoning,  but  in 
vain.  Instead  of  this,  sir,  horrors  have  been  called  up,  chimeras 
suggested,  and  every  terrific  and  melancholy  idea  adduced,  to  pre¬ 
vent  what  I  think  indispensably  necessary  for  our  national  honor, 
happiness  and  safety — I  mean  the  adoption  of  the  system  under 
consideration. 

How  are  we  to  decide  this  question!  Shall  we  take  the  system 
by  way  of  subsequent  amendments,  or  propose  amendments  as  the 
previous  condition  of  our  adoption!  Let  us  consider  this  question 
coolly.  In  my  humble  opinion,  it  transcends  the  power  of  this  con* 
vention  to  take  it  with  previous  amendments.  If  you  take  it  so,  I 
say,  that  you  transcend  and  violate  the  commission  of  the  people. 
For  if  it  be  taken  with  amendments,  the  opinions  of  the  people  at 
large  ought  to  be  consulted  on  them.  Have  they  an  opportunity  of 
considering  previous  amendments!  They  have  seen  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  and  sent  us  hither  to  adopt  or  reject  it.  Have  we  more  latitude 
on  this  subject!  If  you  propose  previous  amendments  as  the  con¬ 
dition  of  your  adoption,  they  may  radically  change  the  paper  on 
the  table,  and  the  people  will  be  bound  by  what  they  know  not. 
Subsequent  amendraents'Would  not  have  that  effect.  They  would 
not  operate  till  the  people  had  an  opportunity  of  considering  and 
altering  them,  if  they  thought  proper.  They  could  have  it  in  their 
power  to  give  contrary  directions  to  their  members  of  congress. 

But  I  observe  with  regret,  that  there  is  a  general  spirit  of  jealousy 
with  respect  to  our  northern  brethren.  Had  we  this  political  jealousy 
in  1775!  If  we  had,  it  would  have  damped  our  ardor  and  intrepi¬ 
dity,  and  prevented  that  unanimous  resistance  which  enabled  us  to 
triumph  over  our  enemies.  It  was  not  a  Virginian,  Carolinian  or 
Pennsylvanian,  but  the  glorious  name  of  an  American,  that  extend¬ 
ed  from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other,  that  was  then  beloved 
and  confided  in.  Did  we  then  expect,  that  in  case  of  success,  wo 


Ijmss.] 


VIRGINIA. 


m 


should  be  armed  against  one  another?  I  would  have  submitted> 
British  tyranny  rather  than  to  northern  tyranny,  had  what  we  have 
been  told  been  true,  that  they  had  no  part  of  that  philanthropic 
spirit,  which  cherishes  fraternal  affection,  unites  friends,  enable# 
them  to  achieve  the  most  gallant  exploits,  and  renders  them  formi¬ 
dable  to  other  nations. 

Gentlemen  say  that  the  states  have  not  similar  interests,  that 
what  will  accommodate  their  interests  will  be  incompatible  with 
ours,  and  that  the  northern  oppression  will  fetter  and  manacle  the 
hands  of  the  southern  people.  Wherein  does  the  dissimilarity  coo 
sist?  Does  not  our  existence  as  a  nation  depend  on  our  union?  Is 
it  to  be  supposed  that  their  principles  will  be  so  constuprated,  and 
that  they  will  be  so  blind  to  their  own  (rue  interests,  as  to  alienate  the 
affections  ot  the  southern  states,  and  adopt  measures  which  will 
produce  discontents  and  terminate  in  a  dissolution  of  an  union,  aa 
necessary  to  their  happiness  as  to  ours?  Will  not  brotherly  affec¬ 
tion  rather  be  cultivated?  Will  not  the  great  principles  of  recipro 
cal  friendship  and  mutual  amity  be  constantly  inculcated,  so  as  to 
conciliate  all  parts  of  the  union?  This  will  be  inevitably  necessary 
from  the  unity  of  their  interests  with  ours.  To  suppose  that  they 
would  act  contrary  to  these  principles,  would  be  to  suppose  them 
to  be  not  only  destitute  of  honor  and  probity,  but  void  of  reason— 
not  only  bad,  but  mad  men. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  warned  us  to  guard  against  Euro¬ 
pean  politics.  Shall  we  not  be  more  able  to  set  their  machination# 
at  defiance,  by  uniting  our  councils  and  strength,  than  by  splitting 
into  factions  and  divisions?  Our  divisions  and  consequent  debility 
are  the  objects  most  ardently  wished  for  by  the  nations  of  Europe. 
What  cause  induced  Great  Britain  and  other  European  nations 
which  had  settlements  in  America,  to  keep  their  colonies  in  aR  in¬ 
fantine  condition?  What  cause  leads  them  to  exclude  our  vessels 
from  the  West  Indies?  The  fear  of  our  becoming  important  and 
powerful.  Will  not  they  be  perpetually  stimulated  by  this  fear? 
Will  not  they  incessantly  endeavour  to  depress  us  by  force  or  stra¬ 
tagems?  Is  there  no  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  Spain,  whose 
extensive  and  invaluable  possessions  are  in  our  vicinity?  Will  that 
nation  rejoice  at  an  augmentation  of  our  strength  or  wealth? 

But  we  are  told  that  we  need  not  be  alraid  of  Great  Britain 
Will  that  great,  that  warlike,  that  vindictive  nation,  loose  the  desire 
of  revenging  her  losses  and  disgraces?  Will  she  passively  overlook 
flagrant  violations  of  the  treaty?  Will  she  lose  the  desire  of  retrie¬ 
ving  those  laurels  which  are  buried  in  America?  Should  I  transfuse 
into  the  breast  of  a  Briton,  that  amor  patriae  which  so  strongly  pre- 


S7S  DEBATES.  [Innes, 

dominates  in  my  own,  he  would  say,  While  I  have  a  guinea,  I  shall 
give  it  to  recover  lost  America! 

But,  says  another  gentleman,  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe 
look  with  anxious  and  jeolous  eyes  on  you.  While  you  are  help¬ 
less,  they  will  let  you  alone,  but  if  you  attempt  to  become  respect¬ 
able,  they  will  crush  you!  Is  this  the  language  or  consolation  of  an 
American?  Must  we  acquiesce  to  continue  in  this  situation?  We 
should  by  this  way  of  reasoning  sacrifice  our  own  honor,  and  inte¬ 
rests,  to  please  those  supercilious  nations,  and  promote  their  inte¬ 
rests,  and  with  every  means  of  acquiring  a  powerful  fleet,  would 
never  have  a  ship  of  the  line.  To  promote  their  glory  [we  should 
bee  ome  wretched  and  contemptible.  Our  national  glory,  our  honor, 
our  interests,  forbid  this  disgraceful  conduct.  It  may  be  said  that 
the  ancients  who  deserved  and  acquired  glory,  have  lost  their  liber¬ 
ty.  Call  to  mind  the  many  nations  of  Indians  and  Cannibals  that 
have  lost  it  likewise.  And  who  would  not  rather  be  a  Roman, 
than  one  of  those  who  hardly  deserve  to  be  enumerated  among  the 
human  species  ? 

This  question  is  as  important  as  the  Revolution  which  severed 
us  from  the  British  empire.  It  rests  now  to  be  determined  wheth¬ 
er  America  has  in  reality  gained  by  that  chahge  which  has  beea 
thought  so  glorious,  and  whether  those  hecatombs  of  American 
heroes,  whose  blood  so  freely  shed  at  the  shrine  of  liberty,  fell  in 
vain,  or  whether  we  shall  establish  such  a  government  as  shall  ren¬ 
der  America  respectable  and  happy.  I  wish  her  not  only  to  be 
internally  possessed  of  political  and  civil  liberty,  but  to  be  formi¬ 
dable,  terrible  and  dignified  in  war,  and  not  depend  on  the  ambitious 
princes  of  Europe  for  tranquillity,  security  or  safety.  I  ask  if  the 
most  petty  of  those  princes,  even  the  Dey  of  Algiers,  were  to  make 
war  upon  us  if  the  other  states  of  Europe  should  keep  a  neutrality* 
whether  we  should  not  be  reduced  to  the  greatest  distress  ?  Is  it 
not  in  the  power  of  any  maritime  power  to  seize  our  vessels,  and 
destroy  our  commerce  with  impunity  ? 

But  we  are  told  that  the  New-Engianders  mean  to  take  our  trade 
from  us,  and  make  us  hewers  of  wood,  and  carriers  of  water ;  and 
the  next  moment  that  they  will  emancipate  our  slavess!  But  how 
inconsistent  is  this  ?  They  tell  you  that  the  admission  of  the  impor¬ 
tation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years,  shews  that  their  policy  is  to  keep 
us  weak,  and  yet  the  next  moment  they  tell  you,  that  they  intend 
to  set  them  free  !  If  it  be  their  object  to  corrupt  and  enervate  us, 
will  they  emancipate  our  slaves  ?  Thus  they  complain  and  argu® 
against  it  on  contradictory  principles.  The  constitution  is  to  turn 
the  world  topsyturvy,  to  make  it  answer  their  various  purposes! 

Can  it  be  said  that  liberty  of  conscience  is  in  danger  ?  I  observe 


a»«es.1 


VIRGINIA. 


573 


on  the  side  of  the  constitution,  those  who  have  been  champions  of 
religious  liberty,  an  attack  on  which  I  would  as  soon  resist,  as  one 
on  civil  liberty  1  Do  they  employ  consistent  arguments  to  shew 
that  it  is  in  danger  *  They  inform  you  that  Turks,  Jews,  Infidels, 
Christians,  and  all  ether  sects,  may  be  presidents, and  command  the 
fleet  and  army,  there  being  no  test  to  be  required.  And  yet  the 
tyrannical  and  inquisitorial  congress,  will  ask  me  as  a  private  citi- 
'Jen,  what  is  my  opinion  on  religion,  and  punish  me  if  it  does  not 
conform  to  theirs.  I  cannot  think  the  gentleman  could  be  serious 
when  he  made  these  repugnant  and  incompatible  objections. 

With  respect  to  previous  amendments,  what  will  be  the  conse¬ 
quence?  Virginia  first  discovered  the  defects  of  the  existing  confed¬ 
eracy.  When  the  legislature  was  sitting,  a  few  years  ago,  they  sent 
an  invitation  to  the  other  states  to  make  amendments  to  it.  After 
some  preparatory  steps,  the  late  federal  convention  was  called.  To 
this  were  sent  select  deputies  from  all  the  states,  except  Rhodelsland. 
After  five  mouths  spent  in  tedious  and  painful  investigation,  they 
with  great  difficulty  devised  the  paper  on  the  table,  and  it  has  been 
adopted  by  every  state  which  has  considered  and  discussed  it. 
\  irginia  is  about  dictating-  again  to  the  other  states.  Eight 
states  have  exercised  their  sovereignty  in  ratifying  it.  Yet  with  a 
great  deal  of  humility  we  ask  them  to  rescind,  and  make  such  alter¬ 
ations  as  the  ancient  dominion  shall  think  proper.  States  are  but 
an  aggregate  of  individuals.  Would  not  an  individual  spurn  at 
such  a  requisition?  They  will  say,  It  has  been  laid  before  you,  and  if 
you  do  not  like  it,  consider  the  consequences.  We  are  as  free,  sis¬ 
ter  Virginia,  and  as  independent  as  you  are;  we  do  not  like  to  be 
dictated  to  by  you.  But  say  gentlemen,  we  can  afterwards  come 
into  the  union — we  may  come  in  at  another  time — that  is,  if  they 
do  not  accede  to  our  dictatorial  mandate.  They  are  not  of  such  a 
yielding,  pliant  stuff,  as  to  revoke  a  decision  founded  on  their  most 
solemn  deliberations,  to  gratify  our  capricious  wishes. 

After  hearing  the  arguments  on  this  subject,  and  finding  such  a 
variety  of  contradictory  objections,  I  am  the  more  averse  to  solicit 
another  convention,  from  which  I  should  expect  great  discord,  and 
.ao  good  effect  at  all.  Not  doubting  the  sincerity  of  gentlemen’s 
protestations,  I  say,  the  mode  pointed  out  in  the  constitution  is  much 
better.  For,  according  to  their  mode,  the  union  would  never  be  com¬ 
plete,  till  the  thirteen  states  had  acceded  to  it,  and  eight  states  must 
rescind  and  revoke  what  they  have  done.  By  the  paper  before  you. 


if  two-thirds  of  the  states 
are  obliged  to  cull  a 
which  are  to  be  submitted 
three-fourths-  o i  the  states, 


think  amendments  necessary,  congress 
convention  to  propose  amendments, 
to  the  legislatures,  cr  conventions  in 
the  acquiescence  of  which  will  render 


574 


DEBATES. 


[Ihkks. 


them  binding.  Now  is  there  not  a  greater  probability  of  obtaining 
the  one  than  the  other!  Will  not  nine  states  more  probably  agree  to 
any  amendments  than  thirteen!  The  doctrine  of  chances  is  favor  of 
it. 

Unless  we  in  vain  look  fora  perfect  constitution,  we  ought  to  take 
it.  In  vain  you  will  seek  from  India  to  the  pole,  for  a  perfect  con¬ 
stitution.  Though  it  may  have  certain  defects  yet  I  doubt  whether 
any  system  more  perfect  can  be  obtained  at  this  time.  Let  us  no 
longer  pursue  chimerical  and  ridiculous  systems.  Let  us  try  it — 
experience  ia  the  best  te3t.  It  will  bear  equally  on  all  the  states 
from  New-Hampshire  to  Georgia;  and  as  it  will  operate  equally  on 
all,  they  will  all  call  for  amendments;  and  whatever  the  spirit  of 
America  calls  for,  must  doubtless  take  place  immediately. 

I  consider  congress  as  ourselves,  as  our  fellow-citizens,  and  no 
more  different  from  us  than  our  delegates  in  the  state  legislature.  I 
4onsider  them  as  having  all  a  fellow-feeling  for  us,  and  that  they 
will  never  forget  that  this  government  is  that  of  the  people.  Under 
this  impression,  I  conclude  that  they  will  never  daie  to  go  beyond 
the  bounds  prescribed  in  the  constitution;  and  that  as  they  are  eligi¬ 
ble  and  removeable  by  ourselves,  there  is  sufficient  responsibility— 
for  where  the  power  of  election  frequently  reverts  to  the  people,  and 
that  reversion  is  unimpeded,  there  can  be  no  danger.  Upon  the 
whole  this  is  the  question — shall  it  be  adopted  or  rejected!  With 
■respect  to  previous  amendments  they  are  equal  to  rejection.  They 
are  abhorrent  to  my  mind.  I  consider  them  as  the  greatest  of  evils. 
I  think  myself  bound  to  vote  againstevery  measure  which  I  conceive 
to  be  a  total  rejection,  than  which  nothing  in  my  conception,  can  be 
more  imprudent,  destructive  and  calamitous. 

Mr  TYLER. — Mr  Chairman,  I  should  have  been  satisfied  with 
giving  my  vote  on  the  question  to  day,  but  as  I  wish  to  hand  down 
to  posterity  my  opposition  to  this  system,  I  conceive  it  to  be  my  du¬ 
ty  to  declare  the  principles  on  which  I  disapprove  it,  and  the  cause 
•of  my  opposition.  I  have  seriously  considered  the  subject  in  my 
mind,  and  when  I  consider  the  effects  which  may  happen  to  this 
■country  from  its  adoption,  I  tremble  at  it.  My  opposition  to  it  arose 
Jirst  from  general  principles,  independent  of  any  local  consideration. 
But  when  I  find  that  the  constitution  is  expressed  in  indefinite  terms 
in  terms,  whieh  the  gentleman  who  composed  it,  do  not  all  concnr 
in  the  meaning  of,  I  say  that  when  it  is  thus  liable  to  objections  and 
.different  constructions,  I  find  no  rest  in  my  mind.  Those  clauses 
which  answer  different  constructions,  will  be  used  to  serve  particu¬ 
lar  purposes.  If  the  able  members  who  composed  it  cannot  agree 
■on  the  construction  of  it,  shall  l  be  thought  lash  or  wrong  to  pas# 
censure  on  its  ambiguity! 


VIRGINIA. 


57  6 


Tmuuu] 

The  worthy  member  last  up  has  brought  us  to  a  degrading  situa¬ 
tion,  that  we  have  no  right  to  propose  amendments,  ’’  should  haY® 
expected  such  language  had  we  already  adopted  a  constitution, 
which  will  preclude  us  from  this  advantage.  If  we  propose  to  them 
to  reconsider  what  they  have  done,  and  not  rescind  it,  will  it  be  dic¬ 
tating  to  them?  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  our  amendments  will 
bind  other  stated:  I  hope  no  gentleman  will  be  so  weak  as  to  say 
so.  But  no  gentleman  on  the  other  side  will  deny  out  right  of  pro¬ 
posing  amendment.  Wherefore  is  it  called  dictatorial?  It  is  not 
my  wish  that  they  should  rescind,  but  so  much  as  will  secure  oar 
peace  and  liberty.  WTe  wish  to  propose  such  amendments  to  the 
sister  states,  as  will  reconcile  all  the  states.  Will  gentlemen  think 
this  will  dissolve  the  union? 

Among  all  the  chimeras  adduced  on  this  occasion,  we  are  intimi¬ 
dated  with  the  fear  of  being  attacked  by  the  petty  princes  of  Europe. 
The  little  predatory  nation'  of  Europe  are  to  cross  the  Atlantic  and 
fall  upon  us,  and  to  avoid  this  we  must  adopt  this  government  with 
mil  its  defects.  Are  we  to  be  frightened  into  its  adoption? 

The  gentleman  has  objected  to  previous  amendments,  because  th® 
people  did  not  know  them.  Hava  they  seen  their  subsequent  amend¬ 
ments? 

[Here  Mr  Innes  rose  and  explained  the  difference,  that  previous 
■amendments  would  be  binding  on  the  people,  though  they  had  ne¬ 
ver  seen  them,  and  should  have  no  opportunity  of  considering  them 
before  they  should  operate:  but  that  subsequent  amendments  being 
only  recommendatory  in  their  nature, could  be  reviewed  by  the  peo¬ 
ple  before  they  would  become  a  part  of  the  system;  and  if  they  dis¬ 
approved  of  them,  they  might  direct  their  delegates  in  congress  to 
alter  and  modify  them.] 

Mr  TYLER  then  proceeded — I  have  seen  their  subsequent 
amendments,  and  although  they  hold  out  something  like  the  thing 
we  wish,  yet  they  have  not  entered  pointedly  and  substantially  in¬ 
to  it.  What  have  they  said  about  direct  taxation?  They  have  said 
nothing  on  this  subject.  Is  there  any  limitation  of,  or  restriction  on 
the  federal  judicial  power?  I  think  not.  So  that  gentleman  hold  out 
the  idea  of  amendments  which  will  not  alter  one  dangerous  part  of 

it.  It  contains  many  dangerous  articles.  No  gentleman  here  cn* 
give  such  a  construction  of  it,  as  will  give  general  satisfaction. 
Shall  we  be  told  that  wo  shall  be  attacked  by  the  Algerines,  and 
that  disunion  will  take  place,  unless  we  adopt  it?  Such  language 
as  this  I  did  not  expect  here.  Little  did  I  think  that  matters  would 
come  to  this,  when  wc  separated  from  the  mother  country.  There, 
Sir,  every  man  is  amenable  to  punishment.  There  is  far  less ^res¬ 
ponsibility  in  this  government.  British  tyranny  would  have  bee* 
more  tolerable.  By  our  present  government  every  man  is  secure  m 


$76 


DEBATES. 


[Tyleh* 


his  person,  and  the  enjoyment  of  his  property.  There  is  no  man 
who  is  not  liable  to  be  punished  for  misdeeds.  I  ask  what  is  it  that 
disturbs  men  whose  liberty  is  in  the  highest  zenith]  Human  nature 
will  always  be  the  same.  Men  never  were,  nor  ever  will,  be  satis¬ 
fied  with  their  happiness. 

They  tell  you  that  one  letter’s  alteration  will  destroy  it.  I  say 
that  it  is  very  far  from  being  perfect.  I  ask  if  it  were  put  in  imme¬ 
diate  operation,  whether  the  people  could  bear  it — whether  two 
bodies  can  tax  the  same  species  of  property?  The  idea  of  two  om¬ 
nipotent  powers  is  inconsistent.  The  natural  tendency  must  be, either 
a  revolt,  or  the  destruction  of  the  state  governments,  and  a  consoli¬ 
dation  of  them  all  into  one  general  system.  If  we  are  to  be  consoli¬ 
dated,  let  it  be  on  better  grounds.  So  long  as  climate  will  have 
etiect  on  men,  so  long  will  the  different  climates  of  the  United  States 
render  us  different.  Therefore  a  consolidation  is  contrary  to  our  na¬ 
ture,  and  can  only  be  supported  by  an  arbitrary  government. 

Previous  and  subsequejit  amendments  are  now  the  only  dispute ,  and 
when  gentlemen  say,  that  there  is  a  greater  probability  of  obtaining 
the  one,  than  the  other,  they  accompany  their  assertions  with  no 
kind  of  argument.  What  is  the  reason  that  amendments  cannot  be 
got  after  ratification?  Because  we  have  granted  power.  Because 
the  amendments  you  propose  will  diminish  their  power,  and  undo 
some  clauses  in  that  paper.  This  argument  proves  to  me,  that 
they  cannot  be  serious.  It  has  been  plainly  proved  to  yon,  that  it 
is  impracticable.  Local  advantages  are  given  up  as  well  as  the 
regulation  of  trade.  When  it  is  the  case,  will  the  little  states  agree 
to  an  alteration?  When  gentlemen  insist  on  this,  without  produ¬ 
cing  any  argument,  they  will  find  no  credulity  in  me.  Another 
convention  ought  to  be  had,  whether  the  amendments  be  previous 
or  subsequent.  They  say  another  convention  is  dangerous.  How 
is  this  proved?  It  is  only  their  assertion.  Gentleman  tell  us  we 
shall  be  ruined  without  adoption.  Is  this  reasonable?  It  does  not 
appear  so  to  me. 

Much  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of  war  by  foreigners,  and  the 
Indians.  But  a  great  deal  has  been  said  in  refutation  of  it.  Giro 
me  leave  to  say,  that  from  the  situation  of  the  powers  of  Europe  at 
this  time,  no  danger  is  to  be  apprehended  from  thence.  Will  the 
French  go  to  war  with  you,  if  you  do  not  pay  them  wThat  you  owe 
them?  Will  they  thereby  destroy  that  balance,  to  preserve  which, 
they  have  taken  such  immense  trouble?  But  Great  Britain  will  go 
to  war  with  you,  unless  you  comply  with  the  treaty.  Great  Britain, 
which,  to  my  sorrow,  has  monopolised  our  trade,  is  to  go  to  war 
with  us  unless  the  law  of  treaties  be  binding.  Is  this  reasonable  ? 
It  is  not  the  interest  of  Britain  to  quarrel  with  us.  She  will  not 


VIRGINIA. 


577 


Tri.ER.] 

hazard  any  measure  which  may  tend  to  take  our  trade  out  of  her 
hands.  It  is  not  the  interest  of  Holland  to  see  us  destroyed,  or 
oppressed.  It  is  the  interest  of  every  nation  in  Europe  to  keep  up 
the  balance  of  power,  and  therefore  they  will  not  suffer  any  nation 
to  attack  us,  without  immediately  interfering. 

Hut  much  is  said  of  the  propriety  of  our  becoming  a  great  and 
powerful  nation.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  offensive  and 
defensive  war.  If  we  can  defend  ourselves,  it  is  sufficient.  Shall 
we,  sacrifice  the  peace  and  happiness  of  this  country,  to  enable  usto 
make  wanton  war"? 

My  conduct  throughout  the  revolution  will  justify  me.  I  have 
invariably  wished  to  oppose  oppressions.  It  is  true,  that  I  have 
now  a  paltry  office.  I  am  willing  to  give  it  up — away  with  it!  It 
lias  no  influence  on  my  present  conduct.  1  wish  congress  to  have 
the  regulation  of  trade.  I  was  of  opinion  that  a  partial  regulation 
alone  would  not  suffice.  1  was  among  those  members  who,  a  fefv 
years  ago,  proposed  that  regulation.  I  have  lamented  that  I  havo 
put  my  hand  to  it,  since  this  measure  may  have  grown  out  of  it.  It 
was  the  hopes  of  our  people  to  have  their  trade  on  a  respectable 
footing,  But  it  never  entered  into  my  head  that  we  should  quit 
liberty,  and  throw  ourselves  into  the  hands  of  an  energetic  govern¬ 
ment.  Do  you  want  men  to  be  more  free,  or  less  free  than  they  are? 
Gentlemen  have  been  called  upon  to  shew  the  causes  of  this  measure. 
None  have  been  shewn.  Gentlemen  say  we  shall  be  ruined  unless 
we  adopt  it.  We  must  give  up  onr  opinions.  We  cannot  judge 
lor  ourselves.  1  hope  gentlemen,  before  this,  have  been  satisfied 
that  such  language  is  improper.  All  states  which  have  heretofore 
been  lavish  in  the  concession  of  power,  and  relinquishment  of  priv¬ 
ileges,  have  lost  their  liberty.  It  has  been  often  observed  (and  it 
cannot  be  too  often  observed)  that  liberty  ought  not  to  be  given  up 
without  knowing  the  terms.  The  gentlemen  themselves  cannot 
agree  in  the  constructio  »  of  various  clauses  of  it.  And  so  long  as 
this  is  the  case,  so  long  shall  liberty  be  in  danger. 

Gentlemen  say  we  are  jealous — I  am  not  jealous  of  this  house. 

1  could  trust  my  life  with  them.  If  tl>is  constitution  were  safer,  I 
should  not  be  afraid.  But  its  defects  warrant  my  suspicions  and 
fears.  We  are  not  passing  laws  now,  but  laying  the  foundation  on 
which  laws  are  to  be  made.  We  ought,  therefore,  to  be  cautious 
how  we  decide.  When  I  consider  the  constitution  in  all  its  parts, 

I  cannot  but  dread  its  operation.  It  contains  a  variety  of  powers 
too  dangerous  to  be  vested  in  any  set  of  men  whatsoever.  Its 
power  of  direct  taxation,  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  of  the  union, 
und  of  treaties,  are  exceedingly  dangerous.  I  have  never  heard  any 
manner  of  calling  the  president  to  account  for  his  conduct,  nor  even 
vox..  3  37 


f73 


DEBATES. 


[Stephen- 


the  members  of  the  democratic  branch  of  the  government.  We  may 
turn  cut  our  ten  members,  but  what  can  we  do  with  the  other  fifty- 
five?  The  wisdom  of  Great  Britain  gave  each  state  its  own  legisla¬ 
tive  assembly,  and  judiciary,  and  a  right  to  tax  themselves.  When 
they  attempted  to  infringe  that  right,  we  declared  wst.  This  sys¬ 
tem  violates  that  right.  In  the  year  1781  the  assembly  were  obli¬ 
ged  to  pass  a  law,  that  forty  members  could  pass  laws.  I  have 
heard  many  members  say  that  it  was  a  great  departure  from  the 
constitution,  and  that  it  would  lead  to  aiistocracy.  If  we  could  not 
tiust  forty,  can  we  ttost  ten?  Those  who  lay  a  lax  ought  to  be 
amenable  to  the  payment  of  a  proportionate  share  of  it.  I  see  no¬ 
thing  iji  their  subsequent  amendments  going  to  this  point — that  we 
shall  have  a  right  to  tax  ourselves. 

But  gentlemen  say,  that  this  would  destroy  the  constitution.  Of 
what  avail  then  will  their  subsequent  amendments  be?  Will  gen¬ 
tlemen  satisfy  themselves  that  when  they  adopt  this  constitution, 
their  country  will  be  happy?  Is  not  the  country  divided?  Is  it  a 
happy  government,  which  divides  the  people  and  sets  brother  in 
opposition  to  brother?  This  measuie  has  produced  anarchy  and 
confusion.  We  ought  to  have  been  unanimous,  and  gone  side  by 
side,  as  we  went  through  the  revolution.  Instead  of  unanimity,  it 
has  produced  a  general  diversity  of  opinions,  which  may  terminate 
in  the  most  unhappy  consequences.  Wc  only  wish  to  do  away 
ambiguities,  and  establish  our  rights,  on  clear  and  explicit  terms. 
If  this  be  done,  we  shall  all  be  like  one  man-— we  shall  unite  and  be 
happy.  But  if  we  adopt  it  in  its  present  farm,  unanimity  or  concord, 
can  never  take  place.  After  adoption,  we  can  never  expect  to  see 
it  amended  ;  because  they  will  consider  requests  and  solicitations 
for  amendments  as  in  a  high  degree  dictatorial.  They  will  say., 
you  have  signed  and  sealed,  and  you  cannot  now  retract, 

When  I  review  all  these  considerations,  my  heart  is  full,  and  can 
never  be  at  peace,  till  I  see  these  defects  removed.  Our  only  con¬ 
solation  is  the  virtue  of  the  present  age.  It  i9  possible  that  when 
they  see  the  country  divided,  these  politicians  will  reconcile  the 
minds  of  their  countrymen,  by  introducing  such  alterations  as  shall 
bo  deemed  necessary.  Were  it  not  for  this  liopo,  J  should  be  in 
despair.  I  shall  say  no  more;  but  that  I  wish  my  name  to  be  seen 
in  the  yeas  and  nays,  that  it  may  be  known  that  my  opposition  arose 
from  a  full  persuasion  and  conviction  of  its  being  dangerous  to  the 
liberties  of  my  country. 

Mr  STEPHEN  addressed  the  chairman,  but  in  so  low  a  voice 
that  he  could  not  be  distinctly  heard. — He  described  in  a  feeling 
•manner  the  unhappy  situation  of  the  country,  and  the  absolute 
.necessity  of  preventing  a  dismemberment  of  the  confederacy.  J[ 


Tfi.er.] 


VIRGINIA. 


m 


was,  said  he,  sent  hither  to  adopt  the  constitution  as  it  is,  but  sneh 
is  my  regard  for  my  fellow  citizens,  that  I  would  concur  in  amend*' 
raents.  The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  adduced  no  reasons 
or  proofs  to  convince  us,  that  the  amendments  should  become  a  part 
of  the  system, before  ratification.  What  reason  have  we  to  suspect, 
that  persons  who  are  chosen  from  among  ourselves,  will  not  agree 
to  the  introduction  of  such  amendments  as  will  be  desired  by  the 
people  at  large. 

In  all  safe  and  free  governments,  there  ought  to  be  a  judicious 
mixture  in  the  three  different  kinds  of  governments.  This  govern¬ 
ment  is  a  compound  of  those  different  kinds.  Rut  the  democratic 
hind  preponderates,  as  it  ought  to  do.  The  members  of  one  branch 
are  immediately  chosen  by  the  people:  and  the  people  also  elect, 
in  a  secondary  degree,  the  members  of  the  other  two.  At  present 
we  have  no  confederate  government.  It  exists  but  in. name.  The 
honorable  gentleman  asked,  where  is  the  genius  of  America?  What 
else  but  that  genius  has  stimulated  the  people  to  reform  that  govern** 
menl,  which  woful  experience  has  proved  to  he  totally  inefficient? 
Wiiathas  produced  the  unison  of  sentiments  in  the  states  on  this 
subject?  I  expected  that  filial  duty,  and  affection  would  have 
impelled  him  to  inquire  for  the  genius  of  Virginia—  that  genius 
.which  formerly  resisted  British  tyranny,  and,  in  the  language  of 
manly  intrepidity  and  fortitude,  said  to  that  nation — Thus  far,  and 
no  farther,  shall  you  proceed! 

What  has  become  of  that  genius  which  spo-ke  that  magnanimous 
language — that  genius  which  produced  the  federal  convention? 
Yonder  she  is,  in  mournful  attire,  her  hair  dishevelled,  distressed 
with  grief  and  sorrow,  supplicating  our  assistance,  against  gorgons, 
.fiends  and  hydras,  which  are  ready  to  devour  her,  and  carry  deso¬ 
lation  throughout  her  country.  She  bewails  the  decay  of  trade  and 
neglect  of  aorrieulture — her  farmers  discouraged,  her  ship  carper)- 
tors,  blacksmiths,  and  all  other  tradesmen,  unemployed.  Site  casts 
•her  eyes  on  these,  and  deplores  her  inability  to  relieve  them.  She 
sees  and  laments  that  the  profit  of  her  commerce  goes  to  foreign 


.states.  She  further  bewails,  that  all  she  can  raise,  by  taxation,  is 
inadequate  to  her  necessities.  &he  sees  religion  die  l>y  her  side, 
public  faith  prostituted,  and  private  confidence  lost  between  man 
and  man.  Aic  the  hearts  of  her  citizens  so  deaf  to  .compassion 
that  they  will  not  go  to  her  relief  !  If  they  are  so  infatuated*  the 
dire  consequences  may  be  easily  foreseen.  Expostulations  must 
be  made  for  the  defection  of  Virginia,  when  congress  meets.  They 
will  inquire  where  she. has  lately, discovered  so  much  political  wis¬ 
dom— she  that  gave  an  immense  tract  of, country  to  re.lieve  the  gene¬ 
ral  distresses?  Wherqiiy  consists  her  superiority  to  her  friends  of 


5S0 


DEBATES. 


[JOiftfSOKv 


South  Carolina,  and  the  respectable  state  of  Massachusetts,  who^ 
to  prevent  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  adopted  the  constitution,  and 
proposed  such  amendments  as  they  thought  necessary,  placing  con¬ 
fidence  in  the  other  states,  that  they  would  accede  to  them? 

After  making  several  other  remarks,  lie  concluded,  by  declaring, 
that*  in  his  opinion,  they  were  about  to  determine  whether  we  should 
be  one  of  the  United  States  or  not. 

Mr  ZACHARIAH  JOHNSON. — Mr  Chairman,  I  am  now 
Galled  upon  to  decide  the  greatest  of  all  questions — a  question  which 
may’  involve  the  felicity  or  misery  of  myself  and  posterity.  I  have 
hitherto  listened  attentively  to  the  arguments  adduced  by  both 
tides,  and  attended  to  hear  the  discussion  of  the  most  complicated 
parts  of  the  system,  by  gentlemen  of  great  abilities.  Having  now 
dome  to  the  ultimate  stage  or  the  investigation,  I  thfnk  it,  my  duty 
to  declare  my  sentiments  on  the  subject.  "When  I  view  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  government  among  mankind,  and  its  happy  operation  when 
judiciously  constructed;  and  when  I  view  the  principles  of  this  con¬ 
stitution,  and  the  satisfactory  and  liberal  manner  in  which  they 
have  been  developed  by  the  gentleman  in  the  chair,  and  several 
other  gentlemen;  and  when  I  view,  on  the  other  hand,  the  strained 
construction  which  has  been  put,  by  the  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side,  on  every  word  and  syllable,  in  endeavouring  to  prove  op" 
pressions  which  ean  never  possibly  happen,  my  judgment  is  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  safety  and  propriety  of  this  system.  This  conviction 
has  not  arisen  from  a  blind  acquiescence  or  dependence  on  the  as¬ 
sertions  and  opinions  of  others,  but  from  a  full  persuasion  cf  its 
rectitude,  after  an  attentive  and  mature  consideration  of  the  sub¬ 
ject;  the  arguments  of  other  gentlemen  having  only  confirmed  the 
opinion  which  I  had  previously  formed,  and  which  I  was  deter¬ 
mined  to  abandon,  should  I  find  it  to  be  ill  founded. 

As  to  the  principle  cf  representation,  I  find  it  attended  to  in  this 
government  in  the  fullest  manner.  It  is  founded  on  absolute  equal¬ 
ity.  When  I  see  the  power  of  electing  the  representatives — the 
principal  branch — in  the  people  at  large — in  the  people  at  large — in 
those  very  person?  who  are  the  constituents  cf  the  state  legislatures; 
when  1  find  that  the  other  branch  is  chosen  by  the  state  legislature; 
that  the  executive  is  eligible  in  a  secondary  degree  by  the  people 
likewise,  and  that  the  terms  of  elections  are  short,  and  proportionate 
to  the  difficulty  and  magnitude  of  the  objects  which  they  are  to  act 
upon;  and  when,  in  addition  to  this,  I  find  that  no  person  holding 
c ny  office  under  the  United  States  shall  be  a  member  of  either 
branch, — I  say,  when  I  review  all  these  things,  that  1  plainly  see  a 
security  of  the  liberties  of  this  country,  to  which  we  may  safely 
trust.  Were  this  government  defective  in  this  fundamental  p rinci- 


Johnson.] 


VIRGINIA. 


5U 

^plo  of  representation,  it  would  be  so  radical,  that  it  would  admit  oi 
no  remedy. 

I  shall,  consider  several  other  part3  which  are  much  objected  to. 
As  to  the  regulation  of  the  militia,  1  feel  myself  doubly  interested. 
Having  a  numerous  offspring,  I  am  careful  to  prevent  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  any  regulation  that  might  entail  oppression  on  them. 
When  gentlemen  of  high  abilities  in  this  house,  and  whom  I  re¬ 
spect,  tell  us  that  the  militia  may  be  subjected  to  martial  law  in. 
time  ot  peace,  and  whensoever  congress  may  please,  lam  much  as¬ 
tonished.  My  judgment  is  astray  and  exceedingly  undiscerning, 
if  it  can  bear  such  a  construction.  Congress  has  only  the  power 
of  arming  and  disciplining  them.  The  states  have  the  appointment 
of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the  militia,  according 
to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  congress.  When  called  into  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States,  they  shall  be  subject  to  the 
marching  orders  of  the  United  States.  Then,  and  then  only,  it 
ought  to  be  so.  When  we  advert  to  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning 
of  the  words,  without  twisting  and  torturino*  their  natural  signifies- 
tion,  we  must  be  satisfied  that  this  objection  is  groundless.  Had 
we  adverted  to  the  true  meaning,  and  not  gone  farther,  we  should 
not  be  here  to-day,  but  would  have  come  to  a  decision  long  ago. 
We  are  also  told,  that  religion  is  not  secured,  that  religious  tests  are 
not  required.  You  will  find  that  the  exclusion  of  tests  will  strongly 
tend  to  establish  religious  freedom.  If  tests  were  required,  and  if 
the  church  of  England  or  any  other  were  established,  I  might  be 
excluded  from  any  office  under  the  government,  because  my  con¬ 
science  might  not  permit  me  to  take  the  test  required.  The  diver- . 
sity  of  opinions  and  variety  of  sects  in  the  United  States,  havejustly 
been  reckoned  a  great  security  with  respect  to  religious  liberty. 
The  difficulty  of  establishing  an  uniformity  of  religion  in  this  coun¬ 
try  is  immense.  The  extent  of  the  country  is  very  great.  The 
multiplicity  of  sects  is  very  great  likewise.  The  people  are  not  to 
be  disarmed  of  their  weapons.  They  are  left  in  full  possession  of 
them.  The  government  is  administered  by  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  voluntarily  and  freely  chosen. 

Under  these  circumstances,  should  any  one  attempt  to  establish 
their  own  system,  in  prejudice  of  the  rest,  they  would  be  universal¬ 
ly  detested  and  opposed,  and  easily  frustrated.  This  is  a  principle 
which  secures  religious  liberty  most  firmly.  The  government 
will  eepend  on  the  assistance  of  the  people  in  the  d<iy  of  distress. — 
This  is  the  case  in  all  governments.  It  never  was  otherwise.  They 
object  to  this  government,  because  it  is  strong  and  eneregetic,  and 
with  respect  to  the  rich  and  poor,  thst  it  will  be  favorable  to  the 
one  and  oppressive  to  the  other.  It  is  right  it  should  be  energetic. 


DEBATES. 


[Johnson, 


This  does  not  show  that  the  poor  shall  be  more  oppressed  than  the 
rich.  Let  us  examine  it.  If  it  admits  that  private  and  public  jus¬ 
tice  should  be  done,  it  admits  what  is  just.  As  to  the  imdolent  and 
fraudulent,  nothing  will  reclaim  these,  bvt  the  hand  of  force  and 
compulsion.  Is  there  any  thing  in  this  government  which  will 
shew  that  it  will  bear  hardly  and  unequally  on  the  honest  and  in¬ 
dustrious  part  of  the  community?  I  think  not.  As  to  the  mode  of 
taxation,  the  proportion  of  each  state  being  known,  cannot  be  ex¬ 
ceeded.  And  such  proportion  will  be  raised  in  the  most  equitable 
manner  of  the  people,  according  to  their  ability.  There  is  nothing 
o  warrant  a  supposition  that  the  poor  will  be  equally  taxed  with 
the  wealthy  and  opulent. 

I  shall  make  a  comparison,  to  illustrate  my  observations,  between 
the  state  and  the  general  government.  In  our  state  government,  so 
much  admiied  by  the  worthy  gentleman  over  the  way,  though  there 
are  1700  militia  in  some  counties,  and  but  150  in  others,  yet  every 
county  sends  two  members,  to  assist  in  legislating  for  the  whole 
community.  There  is  disproportion  between  the  respectable  coun¬ 
ty  of  Augusta,  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  and  the  circum¬ 
scribed  narrow  county  of  Warwick!  Will  any  gentleman  tell  us, 
that  this  is  a  more  equal  representation  that  is  fixed  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  whereby  30,000  are  to  send  one  representative,  in  whatever 
place  they  may  reside?  By  the  same  state  system  the  poor  in  ma¬ 
ny  instancss  pay  as  much  as  the  rich.  Many  laws  occur  to  my  mind 
where  I  could  shew  you,  that  the  representation  and  taxation  bears 
hard  on  those  who  live  in  large  remote  back  counties.  The  mode 
of  taxation  is  more  oppressive  to  us  than  to  the  rest  of  the  commu¬ 
nity.  Last  fall  when  the  principle  of  taxation  was  debated,  it  was 
determined  that  tobacco  should  be  received  in  discharge  of  taxes* 
but  this  did  not  relieve  us,  for  it  would  not  fetch  what  it  cost  us,  ns 
the  distance  is  so  great,  and  the  carriage  so  difficult.  Other  speci¬ 
fic  articles  were  not  received  in  payment  of  taxes,  so  that  we  had 
no  other  alternative  than  to  pay  specie,  which  was  a  peculiar  hard¬ 
ship.  I  could  point  out  many  other  disadvantages  which  we  labor 
under,  but  I  shall  not  now  fatigue  the  house. 

It  is  my  lot  to  be  among  the  poor  people.  The  most  that  I  can 
claim  or  Catler  myself  with,  is  to  he  of  the  middle  rank.  I  wish  no 
more,  for  I  am  contented.  But  I  shall  give  my  opinion  unbiassed, 
and  uninfluenced  without  erudition  or  eloquence,  hut  with  firmness 
and  candor.  And  in  so  doing,  I  will  smisfy  my  conscience.  If  this 
constitution  be  had,  it  will  bear  equally  as  hard  on  me,  as  on  any 
other  member  of  the  society.  It  will  bear  hard  on  my  children,  who 
are  as  dear  to  me,  as  any  man’s  children  can  be  to  him.  Having 
their  felicity  and  happiness  at  heart,  the  vote  I  shall  give  in  its  fa- 


J0H!*S0S.] 


VIRGINIA. 


583 


vor,  can  only  ho  imputed  to  a  conviction  of  its  utility  and  propriety* 
When  I  look  for  responsibility,  I  fully  find  it  in  that  paper.  When 
the  members  of  the  government  depend  on  ourselves  for  their  ap¬ 
pointment,  and  will  hear  an  equal  share  of  the  burthens  imposed  on 
the  people— -when  their  duty  is  inseparably  connected  with  their  in¬ 
terests,  I  conceive  there  can  ba  no  danger.  Will  thpy  forfeit  the 
friendship  and  confidence  of  their  countrymen  and  counteract  their 
own  interest?  As  they  will  probably  have  families,  they  cannot 
forget  them.  When  one  of  them  sees  that  providence  has  given 
him  a  numerous  family,  he  will  be  averse  to  lay  taxes  on  his  own 
posterity.  They  cannot  escape  them.  They  will  be  as  liable  to 
be  taxed  as  any  other  persons  in  the  community.  Neither  is  he 
sure,  that  he  shall  enjoy  the  place  again,  if  he  breaks  his  faith.— 
When  I  take  these  things  into  consideration,  I  think  there  is  suffi¬ 
cient  responsibility. 

As  to  the  amendments  now  on  your  table,  besides  the  impropriety 
of  proposing  them  to  be  obtained  previous  to  ratification,  they  ap¬ 
pear  to  me  to  be  evidently  and  clearly  objectionable.  Look  at  the 
bill  of  rights;  it  13  totally  mutilated  and  destroyed,  in  that  paper. 
The  15th  article  of  the  bill  of  rights  of  Virginia  is  omitted  entirely 
in  this  proposed  bill  of  rights.  That  article  says,  “That  no  free 
government,  or  the  blessings  ot  liberty  can  be  preserved  to  any  peo¬ 
ple,  but  by  a  firm  adherence  to  justice,  moderation,  temperance, 
frugality,  and  virtue,  and  by  frequent  recurrence  to  fundamental 
principles.”  This  article  is  the  best  of  the  whole.  Taka  away 
this,  and  all  is  gone.  Look  at  the  first  article  of  our  bill  of  rights. 
It  says  that  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent 
Does  that  paper  acknowledge  this?  No. — It  denies  it. 

They  tell  us  that  they  see  a  progressive  danger  of  bringing  about 
emancipation.  The  principle  has  begun  since  the  revolution.  Let 
us  do  what  we  will,  it  will  come  round.  Slavery  has  been  the 
foundation  of  that  impiety  and  dissipation,  which  have  been  30  much 
disseminated  among  our  countrymen.  If  it  were  totally  abolished, 
it  would  do  much  good. 

Gentlemen  say  that  we  destroy  our  own  principles  by  subsequent 
amendments.  They  say  that  it  is  acting  inconsistent  with  our  rea¬ 
sons.  Let  us  examine  this  position.  Here  is  a  principle  of  united 
wisdom  founded  on  mutual  benefits ;  and  as  experience  may  shew 
defects,  we  stipulate,  that  when  they  will  happen,  they  shall  be 
amended.  That  when  a  majority  finds  defects,  we  w  ill  search  a 
remedy  and  apply  it. — These  are  two  ways  of  amending  it,  pointed 
out  in  the  system  itself.  When  introduced,  either  way,  they  are  to 
be  binding. 

I  am  happy  to  see  that  happy  day  approaching,  when  we 


584 


DEBATES. 


[Johnson 


sight  of  dissensions  and  discord,  which  aie  the  greatest  sources  of 
political  misfortunes.  Division  is  a  dreadful  thing.  This  constitu¬ 
tion  may  have  defects.  There  can  be  no  human  institution  without 
defects.  We  must  go  out  of  this  world  to  find  it  otherwise.  The 
annals  of  mankind  do  not  shew  us  one  example  of  a  perfect  consti¬ 
tution. 

When  I  see  such  a  diversity  of  opinions  among  gentlemen  on  this 
occasion,  it  brings  to  my  recollection,  a  portion  of  history  which 
strongly  warns  us  to  be  moderate  and  cautious. 

The  historical  facts  to  which  I  allude,  happened  in  a  situation 
similar  to  our  own.  When  the  parliament  of  England  beheaded 
king  Charles  the  first,  conquered  their  enemies,  obtained  liberty, and 
established  a  kind  of  republic,  one  would  think  that  they  would 
have  had  sufficient  wisdom  and  policy  to  preserve  that  freedom  and 
independence,  which  they  had  with  such  difficulty  acquired.  What 
was  the  consequence!  That  they  would  not  bend  to  the  sanction 
of  laws,  or  legal  authority.  For  the  want  of  an  efficient  and  judi¬ 
cious  system  of  republican  government,  confusion  and  anarchy  took 
place.  Men  became  so  lawless,  so  destitute  of  principle,  and  so  ut¬ 
terly  ungovernable,  that  to  avoid  greater  calamities,  they  were 
driven  to  the  expedient  of  sending  for  the  son  of  that  monarch  whom 
they  had  beheaded,  that  he  might  become  their  master.  This  is 
like  our  situation  in  some  degree.  It  will  completely  resemble  it, 
should  we  lose  our  liberty  as  they  did.  It  warns  and  cautions  us 
to  shun  their  fate,  by  avoiding  the  causes  which  produced  it:  shall 
we  lose  our  blood  and  treasure  which  we  lost  in  the  revolution  and 
permit  anarchy  and  misery  to  complete  the  ruin  of  this  country! 
Under  these  impressions,  and  for  these  reasons,  I  am  for  adopting 
the  constitution  without  previous  amendments.  I  will  go  any  length 
afterwards  to  reconcile  it  to  gentlemen  by  proposing  subsequent 
amendments.  The  great  and  wise  state  of  Massachusetts  has  taken 
this  step.  The  great  and  wise  state  of  Virginia  might  safely  do 
the  same.  I  am  contented  to  rest  my  happiness  on  that  footing. 

Mr.  HENRY. — Mr  Chairman,  when  we  were  told  of  the  diffi¬ 
culty  of  obtaining  previous  amendments,  I  contended  that  they 
might  be  as  easily  obtained  as  subsequent  amendments.  We  are 
told  that  nine  states  have  adopted  it.  If  so,  when  the  government 
gets  in  motion,  have  they  not  a  right  to  consider  our  amendments  as 
well  as  if  we  adopted  first.  If  we  remonstrate,  may  they  not  consi¬ 
der  and  admit  our  amendments!  But  now,  sir,  when  we  have  been 
favored  with  a  view  of  their  subsequent  amendments,  I  am  confirm¬ 
ed  in  what  I  apprehended:  and  that  is,  subsequent  amendments  will 
make  our  condition  worse.  For  they  are  placed  in  such  a  point  of 
view,  as  will  make  this  convention  ridiculous.  I  speak  in  plain  di- 


Henry.] 


VIRGINIA. 


585 


?ect  language.  It  i3  extorted  from  me.  If  this  convention  will  say, 
that  the  very  right  by  which  amendments  are  desired,  is  not  secured, 
then  I  say  our  rights  are  not  secured.  As  we  have  the  right  of  de¬ 
siring  amendments,  why  not  exercise  it?  But  gentlemen  deny  this 
right.  It  follows,  of  course,  that  if  this  right  be  hot  secured,  our 
other  rights  are  not.  The  proposition  of  subsequent  amendments  is 
only  to  lull  our  apprehensions.  We  speak  the  language  of  contra¬ 
diction  and  inconsistency,  to  say  that  rights  are  secured,  and  then 
eay  that  they  are  not.  Is  not  this  placing  this  convention  in  a  con¬ 
temptible  light?  Will  not  this  produce  contempt  of  us  in  congress 
and  every  other  part  of  the  world?  Will  gentlemen  tell  me  that 
they  are  in  earnest  about  these  amendments? 

I  am  convinced  they  mean  nothing  serious.  What  are  the  rights 
which  they  do  not  propose  to  secure — which  they  reject?  For  I 
contend  there  are  many  essential  and  vital  rights  which  are  omitted. 
One  is  the  power  ofdirect  taxation.  Gentlemen  will  not  even  give 
this  invaluable  right  a  place  among  their  subsequent  amendments. 
And  do  gentlemen  mean  seriously,  that,  they  will  oppose  us  on  thin 
ground  on  the  floor  of  congress?  If  Virginia  thinks  it  one  of  her 
dearest  rights,  she  need  not.  expect  to  have  it  amended.  No,  sir, 
it  will  be  opposed.  Taxes  and  excises  are  to  be  laid  on  us.  The 
people  are  to  be  oppressed,  and  the  state  legislature  prostrated.  Very 
material  amendments  are  omitted.  With  respect  to  your  militia, 
we  only  request,  that,  if  congress  should  refuse  to  find  arms  for  them 
this  country  may  lay  out  their  own  money  to  purchase  them.  But 
what  do  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  say?  As  much  as  that  they 
will  oppose  you  in  this  point  also;  for  if  my  recollection  has  not 
failed  me,  they  have  discarded  this  also.  And  shall  we  be  deprived 
of  this  privilege?  We  propose  to  have  it,  in  case  there  shall  be  a 
necessity  to  claim  it.  And  is  this  claim  incompatible  with  the  safe¬ 
ty  of  this  country-— with  the  grandeur  and  strength  of  the  United 
States?  If  gentlemen  find  peace  and  rest  on  their  minds,  when  the 
Telinquishment  of  our  rights  is  declared  to  be  necessary  for  the  ag¬ 
grandisement  of  the  government,  they  are  more  contented  than  I 
am. 

Another  thing  which  they  have  not  mentioned,  is  the  power  of 
treaties.  Two-thirds  of  the  senators  present  can  make  treaties,  and 
they  are,  when  made,  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  are  to 
be  paramount  to  the  state  constitutions.  We  wish  to  guard  against 
the  temporary  suspension  of  our  great  national  rights.  Wc  wish 
some  qualification  of  this  dangerous  power.  We  wish  to  modify  it. 
One  amendment,  which  has  been  wished  for  in  this  respect,  is,  that 
*no  treaty  should  be  made  without  the  consent  of  a  considerable  ma¬ 
jority  of  both  houses.  I  might  go  on  and  enumerate  many  other 


m 


DEBATES. 


[Henry 


great  rights  entirely  neglected  by  their  subsequent  amendments,  but 
shall  pass  over  them  in  silence.  I  am  astonished  at  what  my 
worthy  friend  (Mr  Innes)  said — that  we  have  no  right  of  proposing 
previous  amendments.  That  honorable  gentleman  is  endowed  with 
great  eloquence— eloquence  splendid,  magnificiont.  and  sufficient  to 
shake  the  human  nrnd!  He  has  brought  the  whole  force  of  America 
against  this  state.  He  has  also  strongly  represented  our  compara¬ 
tive  weakness,  with  respect  to  the  powers  of  Europe.  But  when  I 
review  the  actual  state  of  things,  I  see  that  dangers  from  thence  are 
merely  ideal.  His  reasoning  has  no  effect  on  me.  He  cannot  shako 
my  political  faith.  He  admits  our  power  over  subsequent  amend¬ 
ments,  though  not  over  previous  amendments.  Where  is  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  them'?  If  we  have  a  right  to  depart  from  the  letter 
of  our  commission,  in  one  instance,  we  have  in  the  other.  For  sub¬ 
sequent  amendments  have  no  higher  authority  than  previous.  We 
will  be  absolutely  certain  of  escaping  danger  in  the  one  case;  hut 
notin  the  other.  I  think  the  apprehension  expressed  by  another  ho¬ 
norable  gentleman  has  no  good  foundation. — He  apprehended  civil 
discord,  if  vve  did  not  adopt. — I  am  willing  to  concede  that  he  loves 
his  country.  I  will  for  the  sake  of  argument  allow  that  I  am  one  of 
the  meanest  of  those  who  love  their  country.  But  what  does  this 
amount  toT  The  great  and  direct  end  of  government  is  liberty.  Se¬ 
cure  our  liberty  and  privileges,  and  the  end  of  government  is  an¬ 
swered.  If  this  be  not  effectually  done,  government  is  an  evil  — 
What  amendments  does  he  propose  which  secure  our  liberty1?  I  ask 
pardon  if  I  make  a  mistake,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  his  proposed  sub¬ 
sequent  amendments  do  not  secure  one  single  right.  They  say  that 
your  rights  are  secured  in  the  paper  on  the  table,  so  that  these  subse¬ 
quent  amendments  are  a  mere  supererogation.  They  are  not  neces¬ 
sary,  because  the  objects  intended  to  he  secured  by  them,  are  secured 
already.  What  is  to  become  of  the  trial  by  jury?  Had  its  security 
been  made  a  part  of  the  constitution  it  would  have  been  sufficiently 
guarded.  But  as  it  is,  in  that  proposition,  it  is  by  no  means  expli¬ 
citly  secured.  Is  it  not  trifling  to  admit  the  necessity  of  securing  it 
and  not  do  it,  in  a  positive,  unequivocal  manner?  I  wish  I  could 
place  it  in  any  other  view  than  a  trifling  one.  It  is  only  intended  to 
attack  every  project  of  introducing  amendments. — If  t hey  are  serious 
why  do  they  not  join  us,  and  ask  in  a  manly,  firm  and  resolute  man¬ 
ner,  for  these  amendments?  Their  view  is  to  defeat  eveiy  attempt 
to  amend.  When  they  speak  of  their  subsequent  recommendations, 
they  tell  you  that  amendments  must  be  got,  and  the  next  moment 
they  say  they  are  unnecessary! 

1  beg  pardon  of  this  house  for  having  taken  up  mere  time  than 
rame  to  my  share,  and  I  thank  them  for  the  patience  and  polite  at- 


Randolph.] 


VIRGINIA. 


£8T 

tention  with  which  I  have  been  heard.  If  I  shall  be  in  the  minori¬ 
ty,  I  shall  h  <vo  those  painful  sensations,  which  arise  from  a  con¬ 
viction  of  being  overpowered  in  a  good  cause.  Vet  I  will  be  a  peace¬ 
able  citizen!  My  head,  my  hand,  and  my  heart  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  retrieve  the  loss  of  liberty,  and  remove  the  defects  of  that  sys¬ 
tem,  in  a  constitutional  way.  I  wish  not  to  go  to  violence,  but 
will  wait  with  hopes  that  the  spirit  which  predominated  in  the  revo¬ 
lution,  is  not  yet  gone,  nor  the  cause  of  these  who  are  ^attached  to 
the  revolution  yet  lost.  I  shall  therefore  patiently  wait  in  expecta¬ 
tion  of  seeing  that  government’changed,  so  as  to  be  compatible  with 
with  the  safety,  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  people. 

Governor  RANDOLPH.— Mr  Chairman,  one  parting  word  I 
humbly  supplicate: 

The  suffrage  which  I  shall  give  in  favor  of  the  constitution,  will 
be  ascribed,  by  malice,  to  motives  unknown  to  my  breas’.  But  al¬ 
though  for  every  other  act  of  my  life,  I  shall  seek  refuge  in  the 
mercy  of  God — for  this  I  request  his  justice  only.  Lest,  however, 
some  future  annalist  should,  in  the  spirit  of  party  vengeance,  deign 
to  mention  my  name,  let  him  recite  these  truths — that  I  went  to  the 
federal  convention ,  with  the  strongest  affection  for  the  union;  that  I 
acted  there,  in  full  conformity  with  this  affection:  that  I  refused  to 
subscribe ,  because  I  had  as  I  still  have  objections  to  the  constitution ,  and 
wished  a  free  enquiry  into  its  merits,,  and  P  at  the  accession  of 
sight  states  reduced  our  deliberations  to  the  single  question  of  union 
or  no  union . 

Mr  President  now  resumed  the  chair,  and  Mr  Matthews  reported, 
that  the  committee  had  according  to  order,  a6ain  had  the  proposed 
constitution  under  their  consideration,  and  had  gone  through  the 
same  and  come  to  several  resolutions  thereupon,  which  he  read  in 
his  place,  and  afterwards  delivered  in  at  the  clerk’s  table,  where 
the  same  were  again  read,  and  are  as  followeth: 

Whereas  the  powers  granted  under  the  proposed  constitution  are 
the  gift  of  the  people,  anti  every  power  not  granted  thereby,  remains 
with  them,  and  at  their  wlli.  No  right  therefore  of  any  denomina¬ 
tion,  can  be  cancelled,  abridged,  restrained  or  modified  by  the  con¬ 
gress,  by  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives,  acting  any  capaci¬ 
ty,  by  the  president,  or  any  department  or  officer  of  the-  United 
States,  except  in  those  instances  in  which  power  is  given  by  the 
constitution  for  those  purposes,  and  among  other  essential  rights, 
liberty  of  consience  and  of  the  press,  cannot  be  cancelled,  abridged, 
restrained  or  modified  by  any  authority  of  the  United  Sfstes. 

And  Whereas  any  imperfections  which  may  exist  in  the  said 
constitution,  ought  rather  to  be  examined  in  the  mode  prescribed 
therein  for  obtaining  amendments,  than  by  a  delay  with  a  hope  of 
obtaining  previous  amendments  to  bring  the  union  into  danger. 
Hesolvedj  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  that  the  said 


588 


DEBATES. 


•constitution  be  ratified.  But  in  older  to  Telieve  the  apprehension* 
of  those  who  may  be  solicitious  for  amendments, 


Resolved ,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  that  whatsoever 
amendments  may  be  deemed  necessary,  be  recommended  to  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  congress,  which  shall  first  assemble  under  the  said 
constitution,  to  be  acted  upon  according  to  the  mode  prescribed  in 
the  fifth  article  thereof. 

The  first  resolution  being  read  a  second  time,  a  motion  was  made, 
and  the  question  being-  put  to  amend  the  time,  by  substituting  in 
lieu  of  the  said  resolution  and  its  preamble,  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved ,  That  previous  to  the  ratification  of  the  new  constitution 
of  government  recommended  by  the  late  federal  convention,  a  de¬ 
claration  of  rights  asserting  and  securing  from  encroachment  the 
great  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  the  unalienable 
rights  of  the  people,  together  with  amendments  to  the  most  excep¬ 
tionable  parts  of  the  said  constitution  of  government,  ought  to  be 
referred  by  this  convention  to  the  other  states  in  the  American  con¬ 
federacy  for  their  consideration. 

It  passed  in  the  negative — Ayes  80,  Noes  88. 

On  motion  of  Mr  Patrick  Henry,  seconded  by  Mr  Theodorick 
Bland,  the  Ayes  and  Noes,  on  the  said  question,  were  taken  as 
ifollows : 

Ayes. 


Edmund  Custis,  John  Fowler 

John  Pride  Samuel  Richardson 

Edmund  Booker  Joseph  Haden 

William  Cabell  John  Early 

Samuel  Jordan  CabellThomas  Arthurs 
John  Trigg  John  Guerrant 

Charles  Clay  William  Sampson 

H.  Lee,  of  Bourboun  Isaac  Coles 
John  Jones 


Binns  Jones 
Charles  Patteson 
David  Bell 
Robert  Alexander 
Edmund  Winston 
Thomas  Read 
Benjamin  Harrison 
John  Tyler 
David  Patteson 
Stephen  Pankey 
Joseph  Michaux 
Thomas  H.  Drew 
French  Strother 
Joel  Early 
Joseph  Jones 
William  Watkins 
Meriwether  Smith 
James  Upshaw 


George  Carrington 
Parke  Goodall 
J.  Carter  Little  Page 
Thomas  Cooper 
John  Marr 
Thomas  Roane 
Holt  Richeson 
Benjamin  Temple 


Alexander  Robertson 
John  Evans 
Walter  Crocket 
Abraham  Trigg 
Matthew  Walton 
John  Steele 
Robert  Williams 
J.  Wilson  ofPittsylva. 
Thomas  Turpin 
Patrick  Henry 
Robert  Lawson 
Edmund  Ruffin 
Theodorick  Bland 
William  Grayson 
Cuthbert  Bullitt 
Thomas  Carter 


S.  Thompson  Mason  Henry  Dickenson 
William  White  James  Monroe 

Jonathan  Patteson  John  Dawson 

Christopher  RobertsonGeorge  Mason 


John  Logan 
Henry  Pawling 
John  Miller 
Green  Clay 
Samuel  Hopkins 
Richard  Kennon 
Thomas  Allen 


Andrew  Buchanan 
John  Powell  Briggs 
Thomas  Edmunds 
Richard  Carey 
Samuel  Edminson 
James  Montgomery. 


VIRGINIA. 


585» 


,  AToes. 

Ed.Pendleto^PmicPLTohn  Prunty 


George  Parker 
George  Nicholas 
Wilson  Nicholas 
Zachariah  Johnson 
Archibald  Stuart 
William  Dark 
Adam  Stephen 
Martin  M’Ferran 
William  Fleming 


Isaac  Vanmeter 
Abel  Seymour 
Gov.  Randolph 
John  Marshall 
Nathaniel  Burwell 
Robert  Andrews 
James  Johnson 
Robert  Breckenridge 
Rice  Bullock 


William  Thornton 


Jas.  Taylor  ofCarolineWilliam  Fleet 
Paul  Carrington  Burdit  Ashton 
Miles  Kin g 
Worlich  Westwood 
David  Stuart 
Charles  Simms 
Humphrey  Marshall 
Martin  Pickett 
Humphrey  Brooke 


Archibald  Woods 
Ebenezer  Zane 
James  Madison 
J.  Gordon  of  Change 
William  Ronald 
Anthony  Walke 
Thomas  Walke 
Benjamin  Wilson 
J.  Wilson  of  Randolph* 
Walkei  Tomlin 
William  Peachy 
William  M’Kee 
Andrew  Moore 


J. Gordon  of  Lancaster  Thomas  Lewis 


Henry  Towles 
Levin  Powell 
Wm.  Overton  Call  is 
Ralph  Worinely,  jr. 
Francis  Corbin 


J.  Sherman  Woodcock  William  M’Clerry 
Alexander  White 


Warner  Lewis 
Thomas  Smith 
George  Clendinen 
John  Stewart 
William  Mason 
Daniel  Fisher 
Andrew  Woodrow 
Ralph  Humphreys 
George  Jackson 


Willis  Riddick 
Solomon  Shepherd 
William  Clayton 
Burwell  Bassett 
James  Webb 
Jas.  Taylor  of  Norfolk  George  Wythe 
John  Stringer  James  Innes 

Littleton  Eyre  Thomas  Matthews 

Walter  Jones 


Gabriel  Jones 
Jacob  Rinker 
John  Williams 
Benjamin  Blunt 
Samuel  Kello 
John  Hartwell  Cecke 
John  Allen 
Cole  Digges 
H.  Lee, Westmoreland! 
Bushrod  Washington 
John  Blair 


Thomas  Gaskins 

And  then  the  main  question  being  put  that  the  convention  do  agree 
with  the  committee  in  the  said  first  resolution:  It  was  resolved  in. 
the  affirmative — Ayes  89,  Nays  79. 


On  the  motion  of  Mr  George  Mason,  seconded  by  Mr  Patrick 
Henry,  the  Ayes  and  Noes,  on  the  said  main  question ,  were  taken 
as  follows  : 


E.  Pendleton,  Pres. 
George  Paiker 
George  Nicholas 
Wilson  Nicholas 
Zachariah  Johnson 
Archibald  Stuart 
William  Dark 
Adam  Stephen 
Martin  M’Ferran 
William  Fleming 
James  'lay  lor,  Carol  i 
Paul  Carrington 
David  Patteson 
Mites  King 
Worlich  Westwood 
David  fciumi 


Jlyes. 
Charles  Simms 
Humphrey  Marshall 
Martin  Pickett 
Humphrey  Brooke 
John  S.  Woodcock 
Alexander  White 
Warner  Lewis 
Thomas  Smith 
George  Clendinen 
John  Stewart 
l> William  Mason 
Daniel  Fisher 
Andrew  Won  row 
Ralph  Humphreys 
George  Jackson 
John  Prunty 


Isaac  Vanmeter 
Abel  Seymour 
Gov.  Randolph 
John  Marshall 
Nathaniel  Burwell 
Robert  Andrews 
Janies  Johnson 
Robert  Breckenridge 
Rice  Bullock 
William  Fleet 
Bui  dot.  Ashton 
William  Thornton 
J.  Gordon  of  Lancaster 
1  lenry  Tow  lea 
Levin  Powel 
\'i .  Overtoil  Oiihl$ 


S30 


DEBATES. 


Ralph  Wormley  jun. 
Francis  Corbin 
William  MC’lerry 
Willis  Riddick 
Solomon  Shepherd 
William  Clayton 
Burwell  Bassett 
James  Webb 


J.  Taylor  of  Norfolk  "Walker  Tomlin 


Ebenezpr  Zane  Jacob  Rinker 

James  Madison  John  Williams 

James  Gordon,  Orange  Benjamin  Blunt 
William  Ronald  Samuel  Kello 

Anthony  Walke  John  Hartwell  Cocke 

Thomas  Walke  John  Allen 

Benjamin  Wilson  Cole  Digges 

J.  Wilson,  Randolph  H.  Lee,  Westmoreland 


John  Stringer 

Littleton  Evro 
* 

Walter  Jones 
Thomas  Gaskins 
Archibald  Woods 


■Edmund  Custis 
John  Pride 
Edmund  Brooker 
William  Cabell 


William  Peachy, 
William  M’Kee 
Andrew  Moore 
Thomas  Lewis 
Gabriel  Jones 

Noes. 

Samuel  Richardson 
Joseph  (laden 
John  Early 
I'homns  Arthurs 


Samuel  Jordan  CabeliJohn  Guerrant 
John  Trigg  William  Sampson 

Charles  Clay  Isaac  Coles 

Hen:  Lee,  of  Bourbon  George  Carrington 


John  Jones 
Binns  Jones 
Charles  Patteson 
■David  Bell 
Robert  Alexander 
Edmund  Winston 
Thomas  Read 
John  Tyler 
Stephen  Pan  key 
J os'li  Michaux 
Thomas  H.  Drew 
French  Strother 
Joel  Early 
Joseph  Jones 
William  W a  1  kins 
Meriwether  Sm-ith 
James  Upshaw 
John  Fowler 


Bushrod  Washington 
John  Blair 
George  Wythe 
James  Lines 
Thomas  Matthews 


Alexander  Robertso® 
John  Evans 
WTa!fer  Crocket 
Abraham  Trigg, 
Matthew  Walton 
John  Steele 
Robert  Williams 
J.  WJIson,  of  Pittsyi 
Thomas  Turpin 


Parker  Good  all 
John  Carter  Lit.tlepage  Patrick  Henry 
Thomas  Cooper 
John  Marr 
Thomas  Roans 
Holt  Richcson 
Benjamin  Temple 
Stephens  T.  Mason 
William  White  . 

.Jona  Patteson 


Robert  Lawson 
Edmund  Ruffin 
Theodorick  Bland 
W7  i  1  l  i  a  m  G  ra  y  so  n 
Cutlibert  Bullitt 
Thomas  (  irter 
Henry  Dickerson 
James  Monroe 


Christopher  Robertson  John  Dawson 


.ogan 


John  L 
Henry  Pawling 
John  Miller 
Green  Clav 
Samuel  Hopkins 
Richard  Ken  non 
Thomas  Alien 


George  M  son 
Andiew  Buchanan 
John  Howell  Briggs 
Thomas  Edmunds 
Richard  Cary 
Samuel  Edmison 
James  Montgomery 


ng  then  read  a  second  time,  a  motion 


The  second  resolution  Lei 
was  made,  and  the  question  being  put  to  amend  the  same  by  striking 
out  the  preamble  thereto,  it  was  resolved  in  the  affirmative. 

And  thqn  the  m  in  question  being  pat  that  the  convention  da 
agree  with  the  committee  in  the  second  resolution  so  amended,  it 
was  resolved  in  th<*  affirmative. 

On  jnotron,  Orth red.  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  prepare 
and  report  a  form  oi  ratification  pursuant  to  the  first  resolution  ;  ahd 
‘that  Governor  Randolph,  Mr  Nicholas,  Mr  Madison,  Mr  Marshall, 
and  Mr  Corbin,  compose  the  said  committee. 

On  motion.  Ordered,  J’hat  a  committee  bo  appointed  to  prepare 
And  report  such  amendments  as  by  them  shall  be  deemed  necessary.. 


VIRGINIA. 


591 


to  be  recommended,  pursuant  to  the  second  resolution;  and  that  the 
Hon  George  Wythe,  Mr  Harrison,  Mr  Mathews,  Mr  Henry,  Go¬ 
vernor  Randolph,  Mr  Georoe  Morgan,  Mr  Nicholas.  Mr  txraysoa. 
Mr  MadisonVMr  Tyler,  Mr  John JVlazshall,  Mr  Monroe,  Mr  Lfnnald, 
Mr  Bland,  Mr  Merriwether  Smith.  Mr  Paul  Carrington,  Mr  Innes, 
Mr  Hopkins,  Mr  John  Blair,  and  Mr  Simms,  compose  the  said 
committee. 

His  Excellency  Governor  RANDOLPH  reported,  from  the  com¬ 
mittee  appointed,  according  to  order,  a  form  of  ratification ,  which 
was  read  and  agreed  to  by  the  convention,  in  the  words  followings 
VIRGINIA,  to  wit  : 

We,  the  Delegates  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  duly  elected  in  pur¬ 
suance  of  a  recommendation  from  the  general  assembly,  and  now 
met  in  convention,  having  fully  and  freely  investigated  and  discuss¬ 
ed  the  proceedings  of  the  Federal  Convention,  and  being  prepared 
as  well  as  the  most  mature  deliberation  hath  enabled  us,  to  decide 
thereon,  iDo  in  the  name,  and  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  Virginia, 
■declare  and  make  known,  that,  the  powers  granted  under  the  Consti-, 
tution  being  derived  from  the  people  of  LI. States  he  resumed  by  them 
whensoever  the  same  shall  be  perverted  to  their  injury  oroppression  ; 
and  that  every  power,  not  granted  thereby,  remains  with  them  and  at, 
their  will:  that  therefore,  no  right  of  any  denomination,  can  be  can¬ 
celled,  abridged,  restrained  or  modified,  by  the  congress,  by  the  se¬ 
nate  or  house  of  representatives  acting  in  any  capacity,  by  the  prf 
sident  or  any  department,  or  i  ffieer  of  the  United  States,  except  i 
those  instances  in  which  power  is  given  by  the  constitution  for  those 
/purposes:  and  that  among  other  essential  rights, the  liberty  of  con- 
icienceand  of  the  press  cannot  he  cancelled,  nbridg<g£f  restrained  or 
modified,  by  any  authority  of  the  linked  Stales.  ^ 

With  these  impressions,  with  a  solemn  appeal  tfr  the  searcher  of 
hearts,  for  the  purity  of  our  intentions,  and,  under  the  conviction, 
that,  whatsoever  imperfections  may  exist  in  the  constitution,  ought 
rather  to  be  examined  in  the  mode  prescribed  therein,  than  to  bring 
the  union  into  danger,  hy  delay,  with  a  hope,  of  obtaining  amend¬ 
ment^  previous  to  he  ratification  : 

e,  tire  said  Dob  gates,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people  of 
Virginia,  do  by  these  presents  assent  to ,  and  ratify  the  constitution, 
recommended  on  t!  e  seventeenth  day  of'  September,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  <  i  ;h  t  v- seven,  by -the  Federal  Convention,  for  the 
government  of  the  United  States;  hereby  announcing  to  all  these 
whom  it  may  concur  that  the  said  constitution  is  binding  upon  the 
said  people,  according  to  an  authentic  copy  hereto  nnnexe^jjn  tha 
words  following : 

or  the  Constitution,  see  the  commencement  of  this  Volume.] 
Tiny  secy,  the  2f»;A  of  Jane,,  1788. 

An  engrossed  form  <  f  the  r:U,  ficdion  agreed  to  yesterday  contain- 
g  the  proposed  constitution  of  government,  as  recommended  by 
the  Federal  Convention  ci:  the  seventeenth  day  of  September,  one 
.thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  being  prepared  by  the 
secretary,  was  read  and  signed  by  tue  president  in  behalf  of  the 
convention. 

On  motion,  Ordered ,  That  the -said  ratification  be  transmitted  by 
the  president,  in  the  name  of  this  convention,  to  the  United  States 
fin  congress  assembled. 

vQn  motion,  Ordered ,  .’hat  there  be  allowed  to  the  president  oi 


ing 


C\/-ui 


f 


592 


DEBATES. 


this  convention  fcr  his  services,  the  sum  of  forty  shillings  per  day. 
including  his  daily  pay  as  a  member;  to  the  secretary,  the  sum  of 
forty  pounds  ;  to  .the  chaplain,  the  sum  of  thirty- two  pounds;  to 
the  serjeant,  the  sum  of  twenty-four  pounds;  to  the  *clerk  of  the 
committee  of  privileges,  the  sum  of  twenty  pounds  ;  and  to  each  of 
the  door-keepers,  the  sum  of  fifteen  pounds,  for  their  respective  ser¬ 
vices. 


Friday  the  21th  of  June ,  1788. 


Another  engrossed  form  of  the  ratification ,  agreed  to  on  Wednes¬ 
day  last,  containing  the  proposed  constitution  of  government,  as 
recommended  by  the  Federal  Convention  on  the  seventeenth  day  of 
September,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  being 
prepared  by  the  secretary,  was  read,  and  signed  by  the  president, 
in  behalf  of  the  convention. 

On  motion,  Ordered ,  That  the  said  ratification  be  deposited  by  the 
secretary  of  this  convention  in  the  archives  of  the  general  assembly 
of  this  state. 

>  Mr  WYTHE  reported,  from  the  committee  appointed, 'such  amend- 
meats  to  the  proposed  constitution  of  government  for  the  United 
fStaies,  as  were  by  them  deemed  necessary  to  be  recommended  to 
(the  consideration  of  the  congress,  which  shall  first  assemble  under 
the  said  constitution,  to  be  acted  upon  according  to  the  mode  pre¬ 
scribed  in  the  fifth  article  thereof;  and  he  read  the  same  in  his  place, 
and  afterwards  delivered  them  in  at  the  clerk’s  table,  where  the 
same  were  again  read,  and  are  as  follows: 

That  there  be  a  declaration  or  bill  of  rights  asserting  and  seen- 

c?  o 

rinor  from  encroachment  the  essential  and  unalienable  rights  of  the 
people  in  son®®  such  manner  as  the  following: 

1st.  That  these  are  certain  natural  rights,  of  which  men  when 
they  form  a  social  compact  cannot  deprive  or  divest  their  posterity, 
among'  which  are  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty  with  the  means 
of  acquiring,  possessing  and  protecting  property,  and  pursuing  and 
obtaining  happiness  and  safety. 

2d.  That  all  power  is  naturally  invested  in  arid  consequently  de¬ 
rived  from,  the  people,  that  magistrates  therefore  are  their  trustees. 
and  agents  at.  all  times  amenable  to  them. 

&d.  That  government  ought  to  be  instituted  for  the  common  ben- 
efit,  protection  and  security  of  the  people;  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
non-resistance  against  arbitrary  power  and  oppression,  is  absurd,  j 
slavish,  and  destructive  to  the  good  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

4th.  That  no  man  or  set  of  men  are  entitled  to  separate  or  exclu¬ 
sive  (Public  emoluments  or  privileges  from  the  community,  but  iu 
consideration  of  public  services,  which  not  being  descendable,  nei¬ 
ther  ought  the  offices  of  magistrate,  legislature,  or  judge,  or  any 
other  public  office  to  be  hereditary. 

5th.  That  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  cfgovern- 
ment  should  be  separate  and  distinct,  and  that  the  members  of  the 
two  first  may  be  restrained  from  oppression  by  feeling  and  participa¬ 
ting  the  public  burthens,  they  should  at  fixed  peiiods  be  reduced  to 
to  a  private  station,  return  into  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  the  va¬ 
cancies  be  supplied  by  certain  and  regular  elections,  in  which  all  or 
any  part  of  the  former  members  to  be  eligible  or  ineligible,  as  the 
rules  of  the  constitution  of  government,  and  the  laws  shall  direct. 

6ih.  That  the  elections  of  representatives  in  the  legislature  ought 
Vo  be  fiee  and  frequent,  arid  all  men  having  sufficient  evidence  of 


VIRGINIA. 


591 


permanent  coi>:mon  interest  with,  and  attachment  to  the  community 
ought  to  have  the  right  ot  suffrage:  and  no  aid,  charge,  tax  or  fee, 
can  be  set,  rated,  or  levied  upon  the  people  without  their  own  con¬ 
sent,  or  that  ol  their  representatives,  so,  elected,  nor  can  they  be 
bound  by  any  law,  to  which  they  have  not  in  like  manner  assented 
for  the  public  good. 

/th.  that  all  power  of  suspending  laws,  or  the  execution  of  laws 
by  any  authority  without  the  consent  of  the  representatives  of  the 
people  in  the  legislature,  is  injurious  to  their  rights,  and  ought  not 
be  exercised. 

8th.  That  in  all  criminal  and  capital  prosecutions,  a  man  hath  aright 
to  demand  the  cause  and  nature  of  his  accusation,  to  be  confronted 
with  the  accusers  and  witnesses,  to  call  for  evidence,  and  be  allowed 
counsel  in  favor,  and  to  a  fair  and  speedy  trial  by  an  impartial  jury 
of  his  vicinage,  without  whose  unanimous  consent  he  cannot  be 
found  guilty  (except  in  the  government  of  the  land  and  naval  forces) 
nor  can  he  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  himself. 

9th.  That  no  freeman  ought  to  be  taken,  imprisoned,  or  disseized 
of  his  freehold  liberties,  privileges  or  franchises,  or  outlawed,  or 
exiled,  or  in  any  manner  destroyed  or  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty, 
or  property,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land. 

10th.  That  every  freeman  restrained  of  his  liberty  is  entitled  to  a 
remedy,  to  enquire  into  the  lawfulness  [thereof,  and  to  remove  the 
same,  if  unlawful,  and  that  such  remedy  ought  not  to  be  denied  nor 
delayed. 

11th.  That  in  controversies  respecting  property,  and  in  suits  be¬ 
tween  man  and  man,  the  ancient  trial  by  jury,  is  one  of  ^he  greatest 
Securities  to  the  rights  of  the  people;  and  to  remain  sacred  and  in¬ 
violable. 

12th.  That  every  freeman  ought  to  find  a  certain,  remedy  by  re¬ 
course  to  the  laws  for  all  injuries  and  wrongs  he  may  receive  in  his 
person,  property,  or  character.  He  ought  to  obtain  right  and  justice 
freely  without  sale,  completely  and  without  denial,  promptly  and 
without  delay,  and  that  all  establishments  or  regulations,  contrave¬ 
ning  these  rights,  are  oppressive  and  unjust. 

13th.  That  excessive  bail  ought  not  to  be  required,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  or  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 

14th.  That  every  freeman  has  a  right  to  be  secure  from  all  unrea¬ 
sonable  searches  and  seizures  of  his  person,  his  papers,  and  pro¬ 
perty  ;  all  warrants  therefore  to  search  suspected  places,  or  seize 
any  freeman,  his  papers  or  property,  without  information  on  oath 
(or  affirmation  of  a  person  religiously  scrupulous  of  taking  an  oath) 
of  legal  and  sufficient  cause,  are  grievous  and  oppressive,  and  all 
general  warrants  to  search  suspected  places,  or  to  apprehend  any 
suspected  person  without  specially  naming  or  describing  the  place 
or  person,  are  dangerous  and  ought  not  to  be  granted. 

15th.  That  the  people  have  aright  peaceably  to  assemble  together, 
to  consult  for  the  common  good,  or  to  instruct  their  representatives; 
and  that  every  freeman  has  a  right  to  petition  or  apply  teethe  legisla¬ 
ture  for  redress  of  greviences. 

16th.  That  the  people  have  a  right  to  freedom  of  speech,  and  of 
writing  and  publishing  their  sentiments;  that  the  freedom  of  the 
press  is  one  of  the  greatest  bulwarks  of  liberty,  and  ought  not  to  be 
violated, 
vol  3 


38 


DEBATES. 


17th.  That  the  people  have  a  right  to  keep  and  bear  arms.  That 
/a  well  regulated  militia,  composed  of  the  body  of  the  people  trained 
to  arms,  is  the  proper,  natural  and  safe  defence  of  a  free  state.  That 
standing  armies  in  time  of  peace  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and  there* 
fore  ought  to  be  avoided,  as  far  as  the- circumstances  and  protection 
of  the  community  will  admit;  and  that  in  all  cases,  the  military 
should  be  under  strict  subordination  to  and  governed  by  the  civil 
power. 

18th.  That  no  soldier  in  time  of  peace  ought  to  be  quaitered  in 
any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  and  in  time  of  war  in 
such  manner  only  as  the  law  directs. 

19th.  That  any  person  religiously  scrupulous  of  bearing  arms 
ought  to  be  exempted,  upon  payment  of  an  equivalent  to  employ 
another  to  bear  arms  in  his  stead. 

20th.  That  religion,  oi  the  dulv  which  we  owe  to  our  creator,  and 
the  manner  of  discharging  it,  can  be  directed  only  by  reason  and  con* 
viction,  not  by  force  or  violence,  and  therefore  all  men  have  an  equal, 
natural  and  unalienable  right  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  that  no  particular  religious  sect 
or  society  ought  to  be  favored  or  established  by  law  in  preference  to 
others. 

Amendments  to  the  Constitution. 

1st.  That  each  state  in  the  union  shall  respectively  retain  every 
power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  constitution  dele¬ 
gated  to  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  or  to  the  departments  of 
the  federal  government. 

2d,  That  there  shall  be  one  representative  for  every  thirty  thou¬ 
sand,  according  to  the  enumeration  cr  census  mtiniioned  in  the  con* 
stitution,  until  the  whole  number  ot  representatives  amounts  to  two 
hundred;  after  which  that  number  shall  be  continued  or  encreased  as 
congress  shall  direct,  upon  the. principles  fixed  in  the  constitution,  by 
apportioning  the  representatives  of  each  state  to  some  greater  num¬ 
ber  of  people  from  time  to  time  as  population  encreases. 

3d.  When  the  congress  shall  lay  direct  taxes  or  excises:  they  shall 
immediately  inform  the  executive  power  of  each  state,  of  the  quota 
of  such  state  according  to  the  census  herein  directed,  which  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  be  thereby  raised;  and  if  the  legislature  of  any  state  shall 
pass  a  law  which  shall  be  effectual  for  raising  such  quota,  at  the 
time  required  by  congress,  the  taxes  and  excises  laid  by  congress 
shall  not  be  collected  in  such  state. 

"4th.  That  the  members  of  ihe  senate  nnd  house  of  representatives 
shall  be  ineligible  to,  and  incapable  cf  holding  any  civil  office  un¬ 
der  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  during  the  time  for  whichf 
they  shall  respectively  be  elected. 

51h.  That  the  journals  of  the  proceedings  of  the  senate  and  house 
of  representatives  shall  be  published  at  least  once  in  every  year, 
except  such  parts  thereof  relating  to  treaties,  alliances,  or  military 
operations,  as  in  their  judgt  nent  require  secrecy. 

6th.  That  a  regular  stateme;  ’  and  account  of  the  receipts  and  ex¬ 
penditures  of  public  money,  shah  I  ■>  published  at  least  once  a  year. 

7th.  That  no  commercial  treaty  g.i.  !  he  ratified  without  the  con¬ 
currence  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  the  members  of  the 
senate;  and  no  treaty,  ceding,  contracting,  restraining  or  suspending 
the  territorial  rights  or  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  any  of  them* 


Madison.] 


VIRGINIA. 


59  & 


or  their,  or  any  of  their  rights  or  claims  to  fishing  in  the  American 
seas,  or  navigating  the  American  rivers,  shall  he  made,  but  in  cases 
of  the  most  urgent  and  extreme  necessity,  nor  shall  any  such  treaty 
be  ratified  without  the  concurrence  of  three-fourths  cf  the  whole 
number  of  the  members  of  both  houses  respectively. 

8th.  That  no  navigation  law,  or  law  regulating  commerce,  shall 
be  passed  without  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present, 
in  both  houses. 

9th.  That  no  standing  army  or  regular  troops  shall  be  raised,  or 
kept  up  in  time  of  peace,  without  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present,  in  both  houses. 

10th.  That  no  soicier  shall  be  enlisted  for  any  longer  term  than 
lour  years,  except  in  time  of  war,  and  then  for  no  longer  term  than 
the  continuance  of  the  war. 

1 1th.  That  each  state  respectively  shall  have  the  power  to  provide 

r  or^anizt  ng,  arming,  and  disciplining  its  own  militia,  whensoever 
congress  shall  omit  or  neglect  to  provide  for  the  same.  That  the 
militia  shall  not  be  subject  to  martial  law,  except  when  in  actual 
service  in  time  of  war,  invasion  or  rebellion,  and  when  not  in  the 
actual  service  of  the  United  States  shall  be  subject  only  to  such 
fines,  penalties  and  punishments,  as  shall  be  directed  or  inflicted  by 
the  laws  of  its  own  state. 

12th,  That  the  exclusive  power  of  legislation  given  to  congress 
over  the  federal  town  and  its  adjacent  distiict,  and  other  places,  pur¬ 
chased  or  to  be  purchased  by  congress  of  any  of  the  states,  shall 
extend  only  to  such  regulations  as  respect  the  police  ami  good  go¬ 
vernment  thereof.  ^ 

1 3th.  That  no  person  shall  he  ’capable  of  being  president  of  the 
United  States  for  more  than  oightypars  in  any  term  of  sixteen  years* 

14th.  That  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  ves¬ 
ted  in  one  supreme  court,  and  in  such  courts  of  admiralty  as  con- 
giess  may  front  time  to  time  ordain  and  establish  in  any  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  states.  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law 
and  equity  arising  under  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made  un¬ 
der  the  authority  of  the  United  States;  to  all  cases  affecting  ambas¬ 
sadors,  other  foreign  ministers  and  consuls;  to  all  cases  of  admiral¬ 
ty  and  maritime  jurisdiction  ;  to  controversies  to  which  the  United 
States  shall  he  a  party;  to  controversies  between  two  or  more  states, 
and  between  parties  claiming  lands  under  the  grants  of  different 
states.  In  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  other  foreign  ministers 
and  consuls,  and  those  in  which  a  state  shall  be  a  party,  the  su¬ 
preme  court  shall  have  criginal  jurisdiction;  in  all  other  cases  be¬ 
fore  mentioned,  the  supreme  court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction, 
as  to  matters  of  law  only;  except  in  cases  of  equity  and  of  admi¬ 
ralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction,  in  which  the  supreme  court  shall 
have  appellate  jurisdiction  both  as  to  law  and  fact,  with  such  ex¬ 
ceptions  and  under  such  regulations  as  the  congress  shall  make: 
hut  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  extend  to  no  case 
where  the  cause  of  action  shall  have  originated  before  the  ratifica¬ 
tion  of  the* constitution,  except  in  disputes  between  states  about 
their  territory,  disputes  between  persons  claiming  lands  under  the 
grants  of  different  states,  and  suits  for  debts  due  to  the  United 
States. 

15th.  That  in  criminal  prosecutions,  no  man  shall  be  restrained 
in  the  exercise  of  the  usual  and  accustomed  right  of  challenging  or 
excepting  to  the  jury. 


DEBATES. 


$96 

16th.  That  congress  shall  not  alter,  modify,  or  interfere  in  the 
times,  places,  or  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and  repre¬ 
sentatives  or  either  of  them,  except  when  the  legislatures  of  any 
state  shall  neglect,  refuse,  or  be  disabled  by  invasion  or  rebellion  to 
prescribe  the  same. 

17th.  That  those  clauses  which  declare  that  congress  shall  not 
exercise  certain  powers,  be  not  interpreted  in  any  manner  whatso¬ 
ever,  to  extend  the  powers  of  congress;  but  that  they  be  construed 
either  as  making  exceptions  to  the  specified  powers  where  this  shall 
be  the  case,  or  otherwise,  as  inserted  merely  for  greater  caution. 

18th.  That  the  laws  ascertaining  the  compensation  of  senators, 
and  representatives  for  their  services,  be  postponed  in  their  operation, 
until  after  the  election  of  representatives  immediately  succeeding 
the  passing  thereof;  that  excepted,  which  shall  fiTSt  be  passed  on 
the  subject. 

19th.  That  some  tribunal  other  than  the  senate  be  provided  for 
trying  impeachments  of  senators. 

20th.  That  the  salary  of  a  judge  shall  not  be  increased  or  dimin¬ 
ished  during  his  continuance  in  office,  otherwise  than  by  general 
regulations  of  salary,  which  may  take  place  on  a  revision  of  the 
subject  at  stated  periods  of  not  less  than  seven  years,  to  commence 
from  the  time  such  salaries  shall  be  first  ascertained  by  congress. 

And  the  convention  do,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  people  of 
this  commonwealth,  enjoin  it  upon  their  representatives  in  congress 
to  exert  all  their  influence  and  use  all  reasonable  and  legal  methods 
to  obtain  a  ratification  of  the  foregoing  alterations  and  provisions  in 
the  manner  provided  by  the  fifth  article  of  the  said  constitution;  and 
in  all  congressional  laws  to  be  passed  in  the  mean  time,  to  conform 
to  the  spirit  of  these  amendments  as  lar  as  the  said  constitution 
will  admit.  , 

And  so  much  of  the  said  amendments  as  is  contained  in  the  first 
twenty  articles,  constituting  the  bill  of  rights,  being  read  again, 
Resolved ,  That  this  convention  doth  concur  therein. 

The  other  amendments  to  the  said  proposed  constitution,  con¬ 
tained  in  twenty-one  articles,  being  then  again  read,  a  motion  was 
made,  and  the  question  being  put,  to  amend  the  same  by  striking 
Out  the  third  article,  containing  these  words: 

“  When  congress  shall  lay  direct  taxes  or  excises,  they  shall  im¬ 
mediately  inform  the  executive  power  of  each  state,  or  the  quota  of 
such  state  according  to  the  census  herein  directed,  which  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  be  thereby  raised,  and  if  the  legislature  of  any  state  shall 
pass  a  law  which  shall  be  effectual  for  raising  such  quota  at  the 
time  required  by  congress,  the  taxes  and  excises  laid  by  congress 
shall  not  be  collected  in  such  states.” 

It  passed  in  the  negative — Ayes  65. — Noes  85. 

On  motion  of  Mr  George  Nicholas,  seconded  by  Mr  Benjamin 
Harrison,  the  Ayes  and  Noes  on  the  said  question  were  taken  as 
followeth: 

Jlyes. 

Messrs  George  ParkerWilliam  Dark  Charles  Simms 

George  Nicholas  Adam  Stephen  John  Prunty 

Wilson  Nicholas  Martin  M’Ferren  Abel  Seymour 

Zachariah  Johnson  J.  Taylor,  of  Caroline  Gov.  Randolph 

Archibald  Stuart  David  Stuart  John  Marshall 


Nathaniel  Bur  well 
Robert  Andrews 
James  Johnson 
Rice  Bullock 
Burdet  Ashton 
William  Thornton 
Henry  Towles 
Archibald  Woods 
James  Madison 
J.  Gordon,  of  Orange 
William  Ronald 
Thomas  Walker 
Anthony  Walker 
Benjamin  Wilson 
John  Wilson 
William  Peachy 
Andrew  Moore 


VIRGINIA, 

Thomas  Lewis 
Humphrey  Marshall 
Martin  Picket 
Humphrey  Brooke 
John  S.  Woodcock 
Alexander  White 
Warner  Lewis 
Thomas  Smith 
John  Stewart 
Daniel  Fisher 
Alexander  Woodrow 
George  Jackson 
Levin  Powell 
W'm.  Overton  Callis 
Ralph  W'ormley,  jun. 

Francis  Corbin 
William  M’Clerry 

Noes. 

Edmund  Custis  John  Guerrant 

John  Pride  William  Sampson 

William  Cabell  Isaac  Coles 

Samuel  Jordan  CabellGeorge  Carrington 
John  Trigg  Parke  Goodall 

Charles  Clay  John  Carter  Littlepage 

William  Fleming  Thomas  Cooper 

Henry  Lee,  Bourbon  William  Fleete 
John  Jones  Thomas  Roane 

Bi  nns  Jon 03  Holt  Richeson 

Charles  Patteson  Benjamin  Temple 

David  Bell  Jas.  Gordon,  Lancaster 

Robert  Alexander  Stephens  T.  Mason 

William  White 
Jonathan  Patteson 


5$? 

James  Webb 
James  Taylor,  Norfolk 
John  Stringer 
Littleton  Eyre 
Walter  Jones 
Thomas  Gaskins 
Gabriel  Jones 
Jacob  Rinker 
John  Williams 
Benjamin  Blunt 
Samuel  Kello 
John  Allen 
Cole  Digges 
Bushrod  Washington 
Hon.  George  Wrythe 
Mr  Thomas  Mathews 


E.  Pendleton,  Pres. 

William  Clayton 
Burwell  Basset 
Matthew  Walton 
John  Steele 
Robert  Williams 
John  Wilson 
Thomas  Turpin 
Patrick  Henry 
Edmund  Ruffin 
Theodorick  Bland. 

William  Grayson 
Cuthbert  Bullit 
Walter  Tomlin 
William  M’Keo 
Thomas  Carter 
Henry  Dickenson 
James  Monroe 
John  Dawson 
George  Mason 
Andrew  Buchanan 
John  Hartwell  Cocke 
John  Howell  Briggs 
Thomas  Edmonds 
Richard  Cary 
Samuel  Edminson 
James  Montgomery 

And  then  the  maiiy  question  being  put,  that  this  convention  doth 
concur  with  the  committee  in  the  said  amendments, 

It  was  resolved  in  the  affirmative. 

On  motion  ,  Ordered.  That  the  foregoing  amendments  bo  fairly 
engrossed  upon  parchment,  signed  by  the  president  of  this  conven¬ 
tion,  and  by  him  transmitted,  together  with  the  ratification  of  the 
federal  constitution  to  the  United  States  in  congress  assembled. 


Edmund  Winston 
Thomas  Read 
Paul  Carrington 
Benjamin  Harrison 
John  Tyler 
David  Patteson 


John  Logan 
Henry  Pawling 
John  Miller 
Green  Clay 


Stephen  Pankey,  jun.  Samuel  Hopkins 


Joseph  Michaux 
French  Strother 
Joseph  Jones 
Miles  King 
Joseph  Haden 
John  Early 
Thomas  Arthurs 


Richard  Kennon 
Thomas  Allen 
Alexander  Robertson 
Walter  Crocket 
Abraham  Trigg 
Solomon  Shepherd 


Debates. 


On  motion,  Ordered,  That  a  fair  engrossed  copy  of  the  ratification 
of  the  federal  constitution,  with  the  subsequent  an  endments  this 
day  agreed  to,  signed  by  the  president,  and  attested  by  the  secreta¬ 
ry  of  this  convention,  be  transmitted  by  the  president,  in  the  name 
ot  the  convention,  to  the  executive  or  legislature  of  each  state  in 
the  union. 

Ordered ,  That  the  secretary  do  cause  the  journal  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  this  convention  to  be  faiily  entered  into  a  well  bound  book, 
and  after  being  signed  by  the  president,  and  attested  by  the  secre¬ 
tary,  that  he  deposite  the  same  in  the  archives  of  the  privy  council 
or  council  of  state. 

On  motion,  Ordered ,  That  the  printer  to  this  convention  do  strike 
forthwith,  fifty  copies  of  the  ratification  and  subsequent  amendments 
of  the  federal  Constitution,  for  the  use  of  each  county  in  the  com¬ 
monwealth. 

On  motion,  Ordered ,  That  the  public  auditor  be  requested  to  ad¬ 
just  the  accounts  of  the  printer  to  the  convention  for  his  services, 
and  of  the  workmen  who  made  some  temporary  repairs  and  altera¬ 
tions  in  the  new  academy,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  convention, 
and  tc  grant  his  warrant  on  the  treasurer,  for  the  sum  due  the  re¬ 
spective  claimants. 

On  motion,  Retched  unanimously ,  That  ihe  thanks  of  the  conven¬ 
tion  be  presented  to  the  president,  for  his  able,  upright,  and  impar¬ 
tial  discharge  of  the  duties  of  that  office. 

Whereupon  the  president  made  his  acknowledgement  to  the  con¬ 
vention,  for  so  distinguished  a  mark  of  its  approbation. 

And  then  the  convention  adjourned,  sine  die .” 

Signed  EDMUND  PENDLETON,  President, 

Attest,  JOHN  BECKLEY,  Secretary. 


r 


